ML20128N853
| ML20128N853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/27/1993 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR58727, RULE-PR-20 NUDOCS 9302240001 | |
| Download: ML20128N853 (365) | |
Text
. I J OFFICIALTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS kf0@ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tide: Site Cleanup Criteria Workshop Docket No.
mm Chicago, Illinois '
m Wednesday, January 27, 1993 p 1 - 276 230002 ANN RILEY& ASSOCIATES, LTD. 0 I
1612 K St. N.W., Suite 300 Mshington, D.C 20006 r 93 22 930127 3 J
' f T9. 7 PDR k A
~
- 1.
'l UNITED STATES'
'2- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI cION- I 3 !
4 ***
5 ,
6 SITE CLEANUP CRITERIA WORKSHOP-7 8 ***
c 9
10 Park Hyatt Hotel 11 Chicago, Illinois-12 13 Wednesday, January 27, 1993-
- 14. .
15 The-above-entitled workshop commenced, pursuant to l= 16 notice, at 9:30 a.m.
17 18
.19 20- 1 21 22
=23
(.
24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd, Court Reporters 1612 X. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 e (202)' 293-3950
2l
.1 PARTICIPANTS:
2 3 TED MYERS ,
4 Technical Services Director ~
5 MS3065 6 Toledo Edison 7 300 Madison Avenue 8 Toledo, Ohio 43652 9
10 RITA VASSILAKIS 11 SEC Donohue 12 1240 East Diehl Road I 13 Naperville, Illinois 60563 .
14 15 LYOIA KUYAWA 16 SEC Donohue 17 1240 East Diehl Road 18 Naperville, Illinois- 60563 19 m
20 RUSS OGLE l
l- 21 SEC Donohue 22 1240 East Diehl Road.
( -23 Naperville, Illinois 60563 24 25 l-l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Repoders l 1612 K. Street, ~ N.W., Suite 300 i, Washington, D. C. 20006 L (202) 293-3950
3 1 PARTICIPANTS (continued):
2 3 PATRICK LOUDEN 4- Radiation Specialist 5 U.S. NRC, Region III ,
6 799 Roosevelt Road 7 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 8
9 PAUL WARD 10 Manager of Radiation Safety 11 Abbott Laboratories i 12 D-5812 AP-9 13 Abbott Park, Illinois 60064-3500 14 15 CHARLES NoRELIUZ 16 Director .;
17 Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards 18 U.S. NRC, Region III 19 799 Roosevelt Road 20 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 21 22 23 24 25 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
4 1 PARTICIPANTS (continued):
2 3 DARREL G. WIEDEMAN 4 Acting Chief 5 Fuel Facilities and Contaminated Sites 6 U.S. NRC, Region III 7 799 Roosevelt Road 8 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 9
10 JOHN R. SERAFIN 11 MARS Environmental Solutions 12 P.O. Box 933 13 Tinley Park, Illinoin 60477 14 15 A. EDWARD SCHERER 16 Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 17 ABB Combustion Engineering 18 Nuclear Fuel 19 P.O. Box 500 20 Windsor, Connecticut 06075 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
5 1 PARTICIPANTS (continued):
2 3 WESLEY L. HOLLEY 4 Radiation Specialist 5 U.S. NRC, Region IV 6 611 Ryan Plaza Drive 7 Suite 400 8 Arlington, Texas 76011 ,
9 10 ANTHONY G. KLAZUIA 11 Senior Engineer 12 Sargent & Lundy 13 55 East Monroe 14 Chicago, Illinois 60603 15 16 JOHN S. LOOMIS 17 Manager, Nuclear Regulations 18 Argent & Lundy 19 55 East Monroc Street 20 Chicago, Illinois 60603 21 22 BETTY JOHNSON 23 LWV of Rockford, Illinois 24 1907 Stratford Lane 25 Rockford, Illinois 61107 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- 1
- 5-1 ' PARTICIPANTS (continued)
- '
2' 3 BRUCE MOCKING 4 TERRA 5 523 South Plymouth Court 6 Suite 800 7 Chicago, Illinois 60605 8
9 BARBARA A. DANKMYER 10 Resident Manager 11 Unocal Molycorp, Inc.
12 300 Caldwell Avenue 13 Washington, Pennsylvania 15301 14 15 FELIX M. KILLAR, JR.
16 Director, Nuclear-Programs 17 U.S. CEA 18 1776 I Street, Northwest 19 Washington, D.C. 20006 _
20 21 SCOTT PETERS 22 Media. Services Manager 23 U.S. CEA 24 1776 I Street, Northwest 25 Washington, D.C. 20006 l~
l-l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D. C. 20006 (202).293-3950
7 1 PARTICIPANTS-(continued): i 2 ,
3 L.J. CUNNINGHAM 4 Branch Chief 5 Radiation Protection Branch -;
6 Office.of Nuclear Reactor' Regulation -
7 U.S. NRC ,
l 8 Washington, D.C. 20555 9
10 ROBERT F. BOLAND 11 Mallinckrodt Specialty'Chemica?3 Company _
12 16305 Swingley Ridge Road 13 Chesterfield, Missouri 63017 14 15 ROLAND LIChTS 16 Chief 17 State and-Government Affairs 18 U.S. NRC, Region III 19 799 Roosevelt-Road, Building 4 20 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 21 22 STEVENSON SWANSON 23 Chicago Tribune 24 435 North Michigan Avenue 25 Chicago, Illinois 60611 l
l.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L Court Reporters 1612 K.- Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)'293-3950
=- .- .
r- y 8-l' PARTICIPANTS-[ continued):'
- 2 i 3 CHARLOTTE SHOLEEN 4 Health Physicist j; 5 Argonne National Laboratory.
]
6 9700 South Cass Avenue .
i 7 Argonne, Illinois 60439 8
9 BILL MUNYON 10 Health Physicist 11 Argonne National Laboratory 12 0700 South Cass Avenue 13 Building 212 14 Argonne, Illinois -60439 15 16 BRIDGETTE COTTRAL 17 Safety and occupational Health Manager-18 U.S._ Army 19 Savanna Army Depot Activity 20 Savanna, Illinois 61074-9636 21 22 23.
24 25
.t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
_(202) 293-3950
3 47-(.-
.9' 1 - PARTICIPANTS -'[ continued) :
2 .
3 SANDRA STEVENSON 4 Public Relations Director _
5 ' Shred Pax Corporation-6 136 West Commercial-Avenue 7 Wood Dale, Illinois 60191-1304 P
8 9 JOHN RICHMOND 10 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 11 P.O. Box 19002 12 Green Bay, Wisconsin 54307 13 14 MARK REINHART 15 superintendent, Plant Radiation Protection' 16 Wisconsin Public-Service Corporation 17 Kewaunee Nuclear Plant 18 N-490, Highway 42 19 Kewaunee, Wisconsin 54216-9510 20 21 JIM MALARO 22 Office of Research 23 U.S. NRC 24 Washington, D.C. . 20555-
-25 i.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCit.TES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.10. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
e
_ 10 1 PARTICIPANTS (continued):
2 3 BILL BRUSS 4 Bechtel Power Corporation 5 1240-East Diehl Road 6 .Naperville, Illinois 60540 7
8 JIM MITCHELL 9 Health Physicist 10 U.S. EPA, Region.5-11 77 West Jackson Boulevard 12 Chicago, Illinois 60604 13 14 bob ENGLISH 15 Health Physicist 16 Consumers Power Company 17 1945 Parnall 18 Jackson, Michigan 49201
-19 20 BRYAN W. BAKER 21 Corporate Manager 22 Nuclear Licensing-Industrial Liaison 23 Amersham -i 24 2636 South Clearbrook Drive 25 Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005 ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court _ Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
A a
1 PARTICIPANTS (continued):.
2 3 MONTGOMERY DAVIS 4 Manager, Risk Management 5 United' Energy Services Corporation 6 2525 Waukegan. Road 7 Bannockburn, Illinois' 60015 8
9 DON EGGETT l tn'a 10 Commonwealth Edison 11 1400 Opus Place 12 Suite 300 13 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 14 15- MARCIA LESNIAK 16 Health Physics Supervisor 17 Commonwealth Edison 18 125 South Clark Street 19 Chicago, Illinois 60603 20 21- SHELDON L. TRUBATCH 22 Winston & Strawn 23 1400 L Street, Northwest 24 Washington, D.C. 20005 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K._ Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12 l
1 PARTICIPANTS-(continued):
'2.
3 E. SCOTT MEDLING 4- Plant Licensing Manager.
- 5 Southern California Edison
~
6 23 Parker- ,
7 Irvine, California 92718-8 9 R. BURKLIN 10 Siemens Power Corporation ,
11 2101 Hern Rapids Road 0
12 Rockland, Washington 99350 13 14 WILLIAM S. SCOTT !' .
15 Alternate Radiation Protection Officer-16 Savanna-Army Depot Activity 17 Savanna, Illinois- 61074 18 19' MARK KRIPPEL 20 Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation 21 798 Factory Street 22 West Chicago, Illinois 60185 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
9 131 1- 'PAPTICIPANTS-(continued]t j 2
-3 ~ WILLIAM S. LEE ~
4 Health Physicist 5 DOE-Chicago, MACTEC 6 9900 South Cass Avenue 7 Building 201 8 Argonne, Illinois 60439 9
10 R. FASNALD 11 For R. Jon Stouky 12 Vice President / General Manager 13 NUS 14 1411 Opus Place 15 Suite 103 16 Downers Grove, Illinois 17 18 RICH RAGUS 19 Health Physicist 20 Commonwealth Edison 21 125-South Clark 22 Room 1237 23 Chicago, Illinois 60603 24 25 ANN. RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street,' N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.- C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 .
I 14-1- -PARTICIPANTS'[ continued):-
2 3 MARY GERRY WHITE 4 American Nuclear Society 5 c/o Argonne National Laboratory 6 Argonne, Illinois 60439 7
8 WILLIAM F. NAUGHTON 9 Manger 10 Strategic Licensing-Policies & Issues 11 Commonwealth Edison Company 12 1400 Opus Place 13 Suite 500 14 Downers Grove, Illinois 60505 15 s 16 LYNNETTE HENDRICKS 17 Project Manager 18 NUMARC 19 1776-I Street, Northwest 20 Washington, D.C. 20006 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. .C. 20006 <
_(202) 293-3950
15 1 PARTICIPANTS [ continued):
2 1
3 JOHN F. SCHMITT l 4 Manager 5 NUMARC 6 1776 I Street, Northwest 7 Washington, D.C. 20006 8
9 WALTER T. MacRAE 10 American Electric Power 11 One Riverside Plaza 12 Columbus, Ohio 43215 13 14 CHRIS HERZOG 15 CECO 16 P.O. Box 767 17 Chicago, Illinois 60603 18 19 LOWELL G. RALSTON, Ph.D.
20 S. Cohen & Assoc., Inc.
21 1355 Beverly Road 22 McLean, Virginia 22101 23 24 25 l
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.'N.,* Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- , ~ _~ . . . . .- . . . - - .. . . .. . .
}
, .3 L
l16 1~
. PARTICIPANTS (( continued):
2 !
3 NICHOIAS-LAILAS- -
-4 4' U.S. EPA
~
5 - 4014 Street, Southwest! - , .
J Washington, D.C. :20460
~
6~
l 7
-8 AL'LAMBACHER 9 Licensing Engineer' 10 Perry-Nuclear-Plant -
~
11 P.L. Box 97 12 Mail-Stop E210 13 -Perry,-. Ohio 44081 o 14 , !
15 PAT VOLZA 16 Manager, Radiation Protection Section--
17 Perry Nuclear Power-Plant-18 P.O.-Box 97 19 Mail.Stop SB312 20 Perry,. Ohio _ _4 4 081~
l 21
-22'
'23-24' ir ~25 i 1:
y 1
o ANN RlLEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd. .
j _. Court Reporters. _ .
L 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite' 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 .. i L.
-(202): 293-3950:
, . . . . . - . - - . - - - ~ - - -. . , .
p
/} l 17:
1 PARTICIPANTS -(continued): ;
2-3 JAY TRAVERSO 4 Radiological Engineer 5 Perry Nuclear Power Plant 6 P.O. Box 1000 .
7 Mail Stop W245 8- Perry,. Ohio 44081 9
10 HAROLD JACFSON 11 Sigma Chemical 12 P.O. Box.14508 13 St. Louis, Missouri 63178 14 15 MARILYN D. WEBER 16 Manager, Standards Department 17 American Nuclear Society 18 555 North Kensington-19 LaGrange Park, Illinois 60525 4 20
\"
21 PAUL ROTH 22 Commonwealth Edison Company.
-23 P.O. Box 767 24 Room 1237E-
! 25 Chicago, Illinois 60690-0767 l
L ANN- RlLEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L Court Reporters i 1612 K. Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 Washington, D. ' C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 :
w 118. #
1 PARTICIPANTS l[ continued):
2- :
r
-3 GARY WALD 4 Communications Services, 38FNW
$ Commonwealth Edison. -
6 P.O. Box 767 0-7 Chicago, Illinois. 60690 8
9 JAN STRASMA 10 Public Affairs Officer 11 U.S. NRC 12 799 Roosevelt Road 13 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 14 ,
15 PAM'ALLOWAY 16 Public' Affairs office 17 U.S. NRC, Region III 18 799 Roosev91t Road
-29 Glen El.1.yn, Illinois- 60137-20 l~ 21 RICHARD " DICK" FASNACHT i
l 22 Director of Projects L
23 NUS 24 1411 Opus Place 25 Downers Grove, Illinois 60505 l
l
. ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l' Court Reporters 1612 K. -Street, N.W.,. Suite 300
-Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950 -.
n
'19 1 PARTICIPANTS (continued):
2
-3 ROGER W. TILBROOK 4 Argonne National Laboratory 5 American Nuclear Society-6 9700 South Cass Avenue 7 Argonne, Illinois 60439 8
9 STANLEY J. SEIKEN .
10 Office of Waste Management & Environmental 11 Restoration 12 U.S. Department of Energy, Trevion II 13 Cachington, D.C. 20585 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21-22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIAlTES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 - K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, -D. C. 20006 (202) ?)3-3950
20 ,
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
(9130 a.m.)
3 MR. CAMERON: Good morning,'everyone. My name is 4 Chip Cameron and I'm the special Counsel for Public Liaison 5 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I'd like to welcome 6 all of you to our Regional Workshop on the Site cleanup 7 Criteria for Decommissioning.
8 I'd also like to thank all of you for 9 participating in this effort. The development of site 10 cleanup criteria is an important and complex issue and we 11 appreciate your willingness to provide us with advice on-how' 12 this problem should be addressed.
13 There are many types of nuclear facilities that-14 are licensed by the Commission and by Agreement States at 15 sites throughout the country. Before a license can be 16 terminated, the licensee must clean up any radiological 17 contamination of the site-to the standards that the 18 Commission has determined will protect the public health and-19 safety and allow the site to be released for unrestricted 20 use.
21 Currently, the Commission has not established any-22 generic site cleanup standards for decommissioning. Our 23 current regulatory-framework relies on the application of~
24 regulatory guidance and practice that's been developed over 25 the last 20 years for application on-a site-by-site basis.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers
! 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite. 300 l Washington, D.- C. 20006 l (202) 293 3950
21 ->
1 This site-by-site application still ensuresi the 2 protection of the public' health and safety, and, indeed, the 3 Commission will need to continue to apply this guidance on--
4 an interim ~ basis until we have generic standards'for cleanup 5 established. The commission now believes, however, that it 6 would be desirable and important to establish generic rules 7 for site cleanup.
8 This wou4d ensure consistent application of 9 cleanup standards over the different types of facilities and, 10 over different sites. It would ensure that the cleanup _
11 standards are based on current and comprehensive 12 information. It will facilitate the timely. cleanup'of 13 contaminated sites. And, finally, we believe that the 14 development of generic criteria will ensure that1there is a' 15 thorough and effective public discussion of the standards 16 and the issues involved.
17 It's this last aspect, the thorough and effective -
18 public involvement, that has led the Commission to initiate 19- this enhanced participatory rulemaking, the-effort that-20 brings us together today, 21- The commission would like to get the advice and 22 recommendations on the site cleanup standards issue early in-23 the process, before the-NRC staff takes a position-on=the 24 issues and develops-a-draft proposed rule. We also believe 25 that it's important to see this advice from the broad ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
?? q 1- spectrum of interests.that would be effected by the 2 standards and that have a stake in the' development of the 3 standards.
4 This is reflected in the composition of theLgroup l l
5 around the table. As you look around the table, you will l 6 see representatives from many different interests -- state 7 governments, tribal governments, local governments, citizen -
8 groups, the industry, professional societies, and Federal l 9 agencies.
10 In addition to getting your advice on the issues, 11 we also want to provide an environment.where you can talk to 12 each other about your concerns and your viewpoints. We hope 13 through the workshop process to encourage active discussion 14 and problem-solving on the relevant issues.
15 I would emphasize that this is'not a-consensus 16 process. We are not trying to forge any agreement among you 17 on the relevant issues. I think we all realize that there 18 will be many differences of opinionLaround the_ table, and 19 we're not trying to reconcile those differences here at the 20 workshop.
21 However, we do hope that1the workshop discussions.
22 will assist us in identifying the important issues thatlneed
-23 to be addressed, in. identifying any information gaps that we 24 need.to proceed with the development ~of site cleanup 25 standards, to identify any implementation problems, to hear ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-23 1 your concerns, your viewpoints on the: issues, - and to: perhaps-;
2 develop some creative solutions to these complex issues.
3 We are_ sincerely seeking your advice on these 4 issues and we will seriously consider _them in our 5 decisionmaking process,-and we will document how we-6 considered your comments in our decisionmaking process and 7 in arriving at our regulatory approach.
8 We're going to get some assistance on this from 9 the Keystone Center,_ which is providing_us with facilitation 10 services for these workshops, and I'd like to introduce 11 Michael Lesnick,_ Barbara Stinson and Connie Lewis from the 12 Keystone Center, who will be our facilitators and who later-13 on this morning we'll be turning over the meeting to the 14 facilitators. ,
15 A few words about the process after we complete-16 the workshops. We're going to do seven workshops, six of 17 them regional, one. national. This is the first one. The 18 national workshop is the last one and that's scheduled ~for
~
19 May 6 and 7 in-Washington, D.C.-
20 -The facilitators from the Keystone Center are.
-21 going to prepare a summary of each meeting for your review.
22 They will send that to you for review. We're also keeping a
- 12 3 transcript of the proceedings. The summary of the workshops 24 are prepared by Keystone and the transcript of not-only this L 25 workshop, but all workshops will be available at the L
ANN' RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders
- l. 1612 K Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 L Washington, D. C. 20006 L (202) 293-3950
24-1 Commission's Public Document Room and at the Public Document 2 Rooms in our regional offices. They.will also be-available 3 at the Environmental Protection-Agency Public Document Room 4 in Washington, D.C.
5 In addition, the Commission staff is going to_ .
6 prepare a summary of all workshop comments,_as well as the 7 written comments that were submitted on the rulemaking 8 issues paper. I would encourage you to-supplement your oral 9 comments with written comments, if you would, and for 10 members of the public to send written comments to the 11 Commission on the rulemaking issues paper.
12 This comment period closes on May 28 of-this year.
13 We're going to prepare a generic environmental impact 14 statement on this rulemaking and this process will begin 15 after.the completion of all of these workshops. It will 16 start with the issuance by the Commission of what's called a 17 notice of intent to prepare a statement, and this begins the-18 scoping process-for the preparation of the-. generic 19 environmental impact statement.
20 As part of that scoping process, we plan to hold l
21 one public meeting in Washington, D.C. sometime towards-the 22 end of June of this year. Please note that-we will-fold all 23 of the comments that we receive at this workshop into our 24 scoping decision.
25 As part of our normal process of developing a ANN RILEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 ,
L (202) 293-3950
25 4 1 preposed rule, we will be briefing the Commission's Advisory 2 Committee on Nuclear Waste and the Agreement States on our 3 progress on developing the draft proposed rule. We will-4 make any of the background material available to the public 5 that we provide to those organizations, and that will be 6 ~l happening later on this-year.
7 The draft proposed rule and the draft 8 environmental impact statement will be published for comment 9 in April of 1994.
10 One final note. We're pleased to have the staff 11 from the Environmental Protection Agency with us today av 12 the table. As you know, both'the EPA snd the NRC have 13 regulatory responsibilities in the site cleanup area and the 14 EPA has considerable expertise in the radiation standards ,
15 area. Both agencies are going to be working together to 16- ensure the development of effective and consistent standards 17 for the cleanup of sites that are contaminated with 18 radioactive materials.
19 Again, I welcome all of you to the workshop today 20 and we look forward to having an informative and productive 21 session. What I'd like to do now is turn the microphone
, 22 over to Allan Richardson from the Environmental Protection L
l- 23 Agency to say a few words about the EPA's perspective on 24 this particular rulemaking.
25 MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Chip, and good ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
! Coud Reponers l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 '
(202) 293-3950
D 26' 1 morning.- First,1we'd like to thank NRC and all of_you-for
~
2 coming and for the-opportunity to participate over the next 3 several months in this series of NRC enhanced-participatory 4 rulemaking process workshops. That's quite a mouthful.
5 At the outset, I'd like to make it clear that-EPA 6 is also setting standards for cleanup and developing Federal 7 guidance that will have-an impact on cleanup standards. I 8 will elaborate on the relationship'between the NRC and_the 9 EPA standards a little later.
10 EPA and NRC face many challenges in setting site 11 cleanup criteria and both agencies understand the advantages 12 of meeting these jointly in order to combine the best 13 scientific and technical resources and real world 14 experiences of each agency and its constituencies. We will 15 be actively listening, learning, and, I hope, problem-16 solving during these workshops.
17 I'm not going to elaborate on the need for.
18 standards. I think everybody here understands that. Let me 19 say a little bit about EPA's-special responsibilities in the 20 area of cleanup standards.
21 Under-the authority of the-Atomic Energy Act and-22 the functions that were transferred to EPA way back in 1970 23 by the reorganization which created EPA, we have the 24 recponcibility to establish regulations and Federal guidance 25 to protect public health and the environment, including the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers-1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
'27 1 -cleanup offsites. contaminated with radioactive-materials [
2 In addition tx) that, EPA also has more' general 3 cleanup responsibilities under Superfund and'varte 4 management statutes, which I'm'sure most of you.are quite 5 familiar with. . Historically, we-have considered standards 6 and guidance development in the radiation area to be among 7 our top priorities. Unfortunately, until now, we have 8 lacked the resources to deal with the question of cleanup 9 standards'for radioactive materials.
10 There have been a few recent events whichLhave 11 changed that and EPA is-now actively pursuing the 12 davelopment of Federal guidance and cleanup standards.
-13 There has Leen a fair amo'mt of Congressional interest.-
14 Other Federal agencies have indicated a. strong interest in 15 the development of these standards; in addition to NRC, the 16 Departments of Energy and Defense have obvious needs for 17 cleanup standarda; and state programs.
18 HIn addition-td that, there have been a large 19 number of Superfund and RCRA sites which also need cleanup 20 standards. We're going'to be considering standards in three 21 areas; first, cleanup standards lfor both restricted and 22 unrestricted use of land after remediation;-second, vaste 23 disposal-standards, particularly for wastes which may not 24 require disposal in low level repositories;-and, finally, 25 recycle and reuse standards.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293 3950
l 28 1 Now, obviously, that's a tall order and it's going 2 to be taken on in that order, in the order that I mentioned 3 them. So it will be a number of years before these are all 4 developed.
5 Like the NRC, we're considering a varloty of 6 regulatory approaches. Standards that we set may be risk-7 based, dose-based, performance or technology-based, or some 8 combination of these. They may be generic or they may 9 provide for site-specific modifications. At this time, we 10 have not selected any single specific approach.
11 EPA is also, in parallel with this participatory 12 rulemaking of the NRC and its own development of regulatory 13 standards, actively pursuing the revision of existing 14 Federal radiation protection guidance. First, the general 15 standards for protection of the public, the numbers that you 16 all know, 500 millirem, 170 millirem, and the organ dose 17 limits that have been with us since the early 1960s. And 18 then, in addition to that, ve will be addressing policy 19 issues relevant to residual radioactivity.
20 We're going to be carrying out this more general 21 activity in parallel with our own and the NRC's development 22 of specific cleanup standards. It's our objective to assure 23 through these processes hat there will be a unified Federal 24 approach to all of these issues associated with cleanup of 25 radioactively contaminated sites, the reuse and recycle of ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters j 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 '
(202) 293-3950
29 1 contaminated materials, and the disposal of cleanup wastes.
2 I am not going to detail the process that EPA will 3 use for its own standards here because this is primarily an 4 NRC process that we're engaged in here. We will be 5 publishing in the Federal Register more details about that 6 in the near future. Lutfice it to say that we will be 7 looking at the overlap between Superfund and RCRA criteria 8 and regulations and those that govern cleanup of radioactive 9 materials elsewhere.
10 Our standards are going to address quite 11 specifically the issues associated with the cleanup of doe 12 and DoD sites, and we will, of course, be coordinating, as 13 we always do, with environmental groups, state agencies, the 14 Indian nations, and so on, industry and trade associations, ,,
15 and professional _ groups.
16 Let me say a word about the relationship between 17 the NRC and the EPA standards effort and the Federal 18 guidance. EPA and NRC have entered into a memorandum of 19 understanding that formally defines the roles and 20 responsibilities of each agency for regulations that effect 21 NRC licensees. That memorandum has been published in the 22 Federal Register. I don't have the cite here, but if 23 anybody wants it, I'll get it for you later.
24 Under that agreement, we will, when the NRC has 25 reached its conclusions on these decommissioning standards, ANN - RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202). 293-3950
I I
G !
30 ja 1 make a determination as to whether, in our view, these ,
2 standards provida-an ample margin;of safety for protection.
3 If we reach that conclusion, knd we hope and expect to be .
4 able to do that, we will publish that conclusion for notice; l, 5 and comment and propose that the NRC licensees be exempted .
6 from the EPA standards that we'll be developing for 7 everybody else. That way we hope to avoid duplicative l r
8 regulations for NRC licensees.
9 I think I will stop there. Let me just say that
, t 10 we join the NRC in inviting an active dialogue between work 11 group participants and the free exchange of viewpoints on~ ;
12 these issues. Thank you.
f 13 MR. LESNICK: Thanks, Allan. We're going-to havez 14 questions for clarification for both NRC and EPA'and- ..
15 Keystone, but let us provide a little quick background about 16 the agenda and groundrules and kind of get all this 17- background material'out,.and then ask for any clarification 18 you all need, and then we'll proceed on with:the-agenda.
19 I'm Mike Lesnick from Keystone Center'and welcome. ,
20 We've spoken to many of you around'the-table'and I think,-
21 Herman, sorry we didn't connect on a few of those calls back:
22 and forth. I know you're busy.-
23- MR. CEMBER:- Good' telephone tag. -
24 MR. LESNICK: Good telephone tag, yes. Given the 25 nature of people's work around the table, I guess it's not--
ANN RILEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd. .
Court : Reporters ,
1612 K. Street, N,W., Suite 300- J
' Washington, . D.- C. 20006
-(202) 293 3950' - - . _ _ . - . - - . - -
.. . . - . . _ _ - . - . . - - . _ - _ - . . _ - - - - . . . . - _ _ ~ . . - . . _ . . - .
31 ,
I i surprising. ;
~
2 . As has been said, the goals really of-this session 3 and the other regional sessions are really twofoldt one, to -
4 provide early and useful input to the NRC and to EPA on this 5 topic, and two is to involve individuals from very different 6 perspectives in interactive kind of processes, this-kind of 7 roundtable process in meetings that are also open to the 8 public so that observers and others can comment, ask
. 9 questions and' hear the kind of discussion that's going on_ l 10 here. ;
11 As we've talked with many of you on-the' telephone, .!
12 I think you should be thinking about this as the beginning' 13 of a process, not the end. This is an opportunity to i
14 discuss things that are on your mind, raise questions, and 15 then reflect on that and talk with EPA and NRC staff or 16 write down suggestions subsequent to this kind of meeting. !
17 Keystone staff would like_to briefly outline the.
18 agenda'and some groundrules and-then, as I said, we'll stop' 19 and ask for any clarifying questions around this table, and 20 then do some introductions and get on with the; discussion.
21 MS. LEWIS: I'm Connie Lewis with Keystone Center. 3 22 Just a word or two about Keystone. . We are a-neutral,-non-23- profit organization located in-Keystone, Colorado. We-24 specialize in facilitation and mediation on public policy 25 issues. The areas we work in include environmental quality, ANN RILEY_ & ~ ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite .300 Washington, D. C. 20006 a
-_(202):293 3950;
32 1 natural resources, energy, health, food and agriculture. We 2 work locally, nationally, internationally. j 3 As Mike has aircady referenced, we provide a role 4 of designing, organizing and facilitating processes that 5 bring diverse groups together to help formulate and be 6 involved in discussions of public policy.
7 Our specific role in this process has been so far 8 to work with NRC and EPA to help design the meeting and to 9 develop an agenda. As all of you, except, I guess, Herman, 10 know, we've spoken with you and solicited input that has 11 been used in putting the agenda together and we'll be going 12 through that in a minute.
13 During the meeting, our role will be to chair the 14 discussions and our primary focus will be to help un move 15 through that agenda, hopefully to stay on the agenda. Wo 16 consider this to be a challenge, given that we've got a 17 group of very thoughtful, I don't think very shy individuals 18 around the table, but we'll he working very hard to make 39 sure that we do get through a very full agonda.
20 We will also be recording key themes, issues and 21 ideas that are raised during the discussions. As has been 22 mentioned, we will have a full _ transcript, but to facilitate 23 your observing the points that we are recording as we go 24 along that'will be incorporated into our summary, we'll be 25 working with the flipcharts throughout the discussions and ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
y 7,
?
33 1 recording key issues that are raised as we go along on the 2 flipcharts.
3 Then we will be producing a written summary which 4 will be distributed after the meeting. It will be a little 5 bit more user-friendly than the transcript, the verbatim 6 transcript.
7 Finally, an additional role will be to enforce the 8 groundrules of the discussions and we'll'be talking about 9 that shortly.
10 MS. STINSoN: My name is Barbara Stinson and I, 11 too, have talked with many of you over the phone. Again, we 12 welcome you. I want to take just a moment to walk through 13 the agenda in a general way as to how we're going to try to 14 conduct the meeting and the discussion.
15 Let me just say that the Keystone Center basically 16 developed the agenda in consultation with the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission and EPA staff. What we tried to do 18 was take the issues paper that many of you, most of you have 19 seen and develop a discussion format for the day that would 20 enable everyone around the table to address the issues of 21 greatest concern to them.
22 Whether we've been successful or not at that we 23 will find out. We attempted to do this so that people 24 could, A, have an effective interactive discussion and also 25 so that EPA and NRC could receive back the information that i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
- (202)_293-3950- - -
1 34 1 they need to consider the development of this rule.
2 If everyone can pull out the agenda that either -
3 -if you've received one outside the door, then that's the 4 most current. If you have one that says as of January 19, 5 that's also the most current.
6 As you can see in the format, we're going to have 7 primarily presentations through about the 10:10 format, 8 through about 10:10 this morning. Then we'll have a round 9 of introductions at the table, give people an opportunity to 10 mention their name, who they are affiliated with and 11 describe two issues that are of pressing concern for them 12 that they would like to see addressed in this meeting.
13 Again, that's a brief one-minute or so presentation of your 14 key issues.
15 Then we'll have a couple of presentations by NRC 16 staff by way of more background information and take a 17 period of public comment. You'll notice in the agenda there 18 are periods of public comment disbursed throughout the two 19 days. What we're going to try to accomplish in that -- and 20 I have a microphone here that we'll be able to pass around.
21 What we're going to try to accomplish in that 22 discussion is allow people, observers, people from the 23 public to ask key questions that have occurred to them 24 relevant to the topics we've just discussed. We'll ask that 25 those questions be brief. We've tried to disburse a lot of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L.)d.
- Court Reporters * .T 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 " Y !
Washington, D. C. 20006 'f (202) 293 3950
35 1 comment periods throughout the day rather than-bulking it up 2 into just one period so that alliof you have an opportunity 3 to sort of address the questions as they occur to you.
4 Again, we want-to emphasize that I think NRC has
, 5 selected this type of a format for workshops to also 6 encourage interaction between participants, between the 7 people around the table and the observers and everyone.
8 throughout the day. So there are breaks and other 9 opportunities to ask questions and have discussions,-if you-10 want to direct something at someone in particular.
~
11 Moving into the after lunch discussion, that's 12 actually where the most interactive part of our meeting 13 begins and it will continue throughout the two days to be an 14 interactive discussion. We will start with an introductory ,
15 discussion that will give people an opportunity to discuss 16 some of the advantages and disadvantages of developing 17 generic standards.
18 Then we'll move into a serieL of five cross-19 cutting issue discussions. We've tried to select five 20 _ issues that will provide people an opportunity to talk about 21 the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches that 22 NRC has presented in the issues paper in the context of 23 these overall general topics.
24 So thLt's the general structure. In our initial 25 introductory round-the-table discussion this morning, we're t
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
,. . ~ , . . . - . - -
. - - . . ..-.bOI # a
36 1 going to record the two issues that people raise and we're 2 going to try to assure that there is an opportunity to 3 address those somewhere in the two-day period.
4 Therefore, we have a catch-all topic at the end of 5 the second day at the 3:00 slot. Other key issues, anything -
6 that comes up during the prior discussions that seems 7 critical to address that is not really part of that topic or 8 anything that's raised in that initial presentation of two 9 issues, we'll try to cover in this topic at the end of the 10 second day.
11 That kind of gives us an outline of the agenda and 12 I think Mike is going to mention it.
13 MR. LESNICK: Last item in terms of background ,
14 before clarifying questions. Let's talk a little bit about ,
15 assumptions, presumptions around this table and how we're 16 going to proceed a:td organize the discussions in the 17 meetings.
18 clearly, we're here to maximize interaction and 19 communication on a very, very complicated topic, our 20 primary work is around this table. There will be 21 opportunity, as we said, for comment, but the primary work 22 is around this table.
23 Therefore, he are some things we've got to talk 24 about in terms of r.sumptions and presumptions. I think <
25 chip said rick'. off the bat this is not a consensus effort.
1 i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. - C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 .- -. .. ..
l l
I 37 l
1 So our task and your task around this table is not to reach 1 l
2 agreement. It is to make sure that you clarify your I 1
3 perspective on the topic at hand or to raise other topics 4 that you think need to be raised.
5 Second, we're here to ensure that the different 6 perspectives are heard. So you wi1~ see the facilitators -
7 -we're going to ask you if you want to speak to do this, is 8 to try very hard to make sure we know folks around the table 9 from talking to you and where you come from, just to make ,
10 sure we're calling on people from very different 11 perspectives along the route.
12 We presume there will be different opinions.
13 That's the reason you're here. Therefore, we urge you to 14 try to focus on the issues at hand and not to get into ,
15 debates with each other. We already think you're not going 16 to agree. So let's not fight that battle. Let's make sure 17 you're clarifying.
18 That's not to say that someone might not raise a 19 topic that you think raises an aspect that hasn't been dealt ,
20 with. That's okay. But we don't want to get any kind of 21 tit-for-tat back and forth between folks.
22 Hany of you were invited here because you bring 23 particular experiences, whether it's site-specific 24 experience, experience as a regulator, experience with a 25 company, university, whatever. That's why you were asked to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 _
38 i
i sit around this table.
2 It is going to be helpful for you to draw upon 3 those experiences to help illuminate the issues at hand 4 regarding this potential rulemaking. So we don't want you 5 to ignore those experiences. We want you to really utilize 6 those. But what we do not want is to get trapped in a i 7 discussion of only a particular site. We'd like you to try 8 to extrapolate based on your experiences, what have.you seen 9 that may have worked that's relevant to this, that.may not 10 have worked, etcetera.
11 So if you can kind of take a step back, use what 12 you know, it would be very, very helpful here and we will 13 try to push you in that direction if you're not going in 14 that direction.
15 As I said, this is the beginning of a process. So 16 don't think you've got to get everything out while you're at 17 the mike and talking here. This is the beginning. This is 18 a chance for you to express your own views, to hear others 19 around this table, and hopefully it will give you pause to-20 reflect a little more and refine your own thinking.
21 We have asked EPA and NRC staff to be as available 22 as possible during coffee breaks, etcetera. Pull them 23 aside, talk to them if you have subsequent thoughts.
24 Particularly, consider the possibility after this meeting or 25 others to sit down and do some writing about what you heard ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
39 .
1- and-your own refinement and thinkihg.
, 2 Given all this, then, we've got sose pretty basic [
3 groundrules we want to pursue. one, we will have f 4 differences. So let's respect each other's opinions and 5 acknowledge that that's going to be the way-it l's. We don't 4
^
6 want any kind cf personal attacks or any of that kind of 7 stuff. There are differences of opinion. Respect it, move 8 on, do your thing around the table.
o 9 Number two, we have got a very limited time,-two 10 days, to talk about a very, very complicated issue.- As far 11 as we can tell from talking to you all on the phone,.there 12 are no wall flowers around this table. So our biggest ~ task 13 is not going to be to draw you out. It's going to$be to try 14 and keep _you focused and keep the discussion moving and make' f 15 '
sure others from different points of view get-an opportunity 16 to talk.
17 So you will have to bear with us as facilitators.
18 if we really try and say, you know, can you get to this_ "
19 point, can we move on, etcetera. So, please, don't take-c 20 that personally. We're just trying_to anhance the- 1 l
21 discussion around the table. '
22 So with your permission, unless someone feels a 23 strongly, we're going to_go with those two groundrules; 24 respecting the time, respecting people's opinions.
25 As noted, for observers, and'that's what you all l .
?
o ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Coud Reponers 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. - 20006 ;
p '(202F 293-3950:
_ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ ~
l l
40 1 are going to be called back there, there will be 2 opportunities throughout for comment, for questions. But as 3 I indicated, the major work is around this table. But 4 throughout the any today and tomorrow, there will be chances ,
5 to make some comments, suggestions and raise questions. ;
6 Again, for observers, during the breaks, if you've 7 got something on your mind, talk to one of the NRC staff, ,
8 talk to some of the EPA staff.
9 Let's gt around this table quickly. Any 10 clarifying questions? You've heard from NRC kind of some
~;
11 opening thoughts, framework from EPA to kind of put you in 12 the ballpark, and from Keystone in terms of agenda. Any 13 clarifying questions, major problems, before we go around to 14 introductions? Herman? ,
15 MR. CEMBER: Just a quick question. Allan spoke .
16 about integrating the NRC. Isn't there an agency called 17 CHERCO or something, I fcrgot what it all stands--for, that's 18 supposed to integrate all the activities of the Federal 19 Government regarding radioactivity?
20 MR. RICHARDSON: I think you ascribed it -- it's
- 21 CHERPIC, and I won't try end remember all the words that go l
22 into that huge acronym. !J 3 It is not its function to 23 manage the independent regulatory functions of.the Federal-l L 24 agencies. In fact,_that's specifically excluded from its l .
25 charter.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters--
l 1612 - K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 g Washington, D. C. 20006 '
- (202); 293-3950
41 1 MR. LESNICK: Any other clarifying' questions?
2 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: Allan, I noted that you did 3 not mention mixed waste. I'm wondering why.
4 MR. RICHARDSON: Because I just had ten minutes.
5 MR. LESNICK: We're not presuming that it's 6 invisible. Any other clarifying questions about the agenda, 7 the process, groundrules, while you're here?
8 (No response.)
9 MR. LESNICK: The last thing I'd say is you'll 10 note we only have six microphones around the table. They do 11 have long cords and it sounds like from people raising t'seir 12 hands in the audience, it would be helpful to get the 13 microphones as close to people as possible. I see a bunch 14 of heads nodding. ,
15 So, Susan and David, if you can kind of move that 16 microphone around, and, Jack and David, if you can kind of 17 keep that one moving, and we've got Frank and Carolyn on 18 this side and Robert and Mary -- Robert and Connie -- these 19 are wierd pairings, but what the hock. You might have to 20 pull on these a little bit to get the initial slack.
21 MS, STINSON: What we'd like to do right now is 22 offer an opportunity for everyone to introduce themselves 23 around the table; again, mention your affiliation. Connie 24 is going to record the two issues that you would like to see 25 addressed in this rulemaking process.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
42 1 We'd like to ask everyone around the table to 2 mention those issues. Why don't we start with you, Chip?
3 MR. CAMERON: Chip Cameron from the Nuclear 4 Regulatory Commission, Office of General Counsel. I guess 5 the issues that are important to me, I'm very concerned 6 about the process of interaction among all of you on these 7 issues and looking for some productive discussion that we 8 can use in going about our efforts.
. I suppose on specific substantive issues, the 10 whole issue of how the Commission should address the 11 unrestricted use issue, cases where it may not be feasible 12 to clean up a particular site for unrestricted use. That's 13 one important issue.
14 And the basic issue of what approach we should ,,
15 take in establishing these standards or, more importantly, 16 perhaps, what combination of approaches we should use.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. WEBER: My name in Mike Weber. I'm from the 19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office of Nuclear 20 Materials Safety and Safeguards in Washington, D.C.,
21 Headquarters. My two important issues -- I thought I was 22 going to have to go at the end, so I'm glad I got to go at 23 the beginning so somebody else didn't use my issues.
24 MR. LESNICK: Not a staged effort. You can tell 25 already.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washin0 ton, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
43 1 MR. WEBER: What's the level of protection that 2 we're striving for in setting these criteria and my second 3 issue would be recognizing the linkage between 4 decommissioning and waste disposal.
5 MR. JOHNSON: My nane is Al Johnson and I'm 6 representing Mr. Bud Aros, who is the President of our 7 company, Scientific College Group. I'm the Manager of our 8 Radiological Engineering and Dect?missioning Services 9 organization.
10 Two issues that I have, one is that in the 11 development of standards, specifically in the area of 12 release criteria, once the NRC has established what their 13 basis is going to be, it will be necessary that they then 14 look at the technology that's currently available and its 15 inherent limitations associated with what it can detect, 16 what we can detect, as well as the practical applications of 17 -- anything is possible. Only some things can be 18 implemented reasonably.
19 From a contractor's perspective, which is the one 20 that I would be representing, a lot of companies get --
21 would have maybe the same opinion or like opindons and 22 concerns, that they're perceived or we would be perceived 23 as, well, we'll do anything you guys want to do.
24 That really, to a certain extent, is probably 25 true, uut on the same side, we all want to do as good a job ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20W (202) 293 3950
- _. . . . . ~. m. . - .
t 1 as we can do. We will not be able to do a good job if the !
2 standards are unclear or if the limits that are established ;
3 are beyond what is not only technically possible, but ,
4 practically possible.
5 My second one is for the concern or an issue that 6 I'd like to see addrest.ed is once a rulemaking process.is 7 completed, how will past decommissioning projects be looked 8 at, as well as how will decommissioning projects ~that are- l 9 currently undergoing will be looked at to be a grandfather 10 type of issue'or will there be an issue associated with to 11 finish the cleanup and maybe with a fixed price project, 12 contractual-issues, and then the next day the_ standard is 13 changed.
14 MS. STINSON: Thanks. Robert? -
15 MR. HOLDEN: Good morning. Robert Holden with 16 National Congress. I hope to-not take too much of your 17 time, but just to show you and explain the constituency that .
18 I work with and note that it's good to see an' agency that-is' <
19 not claiming to circle wagons at the outset, but willing to 20 work with tribal governments. NCAI is the oldest, largest 21 national _ Indian organization in the country. It began in' <
22 1944.
23 It's a tribal government at the organization. We-24 represent -- our membership is tribal governments 25 themselves. Tribal governm: its, as you may know, have quite ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
. Court Reporters : :
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D C. 20006 (202)_293-3950
__ _.. _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ . _. . _ . _ 2._ . _ . - - _ - . _ _ --_ --
45 1 a unique status within the Federal Government context.
2 Treaties and statutes give Federal agencies fiduciary duty 3 and special responsibility to oversee many areas-of 3 4 protection within Indian country, and that includes 5 environmental quality protection.
6 However, many tribal governments do have their own 7 regulatory schemes in place, separate from states, counties 4 8 and so forth, even though they may be within a state or 9 within a county.
10 The NCAI has a National Indian Nuclear Waste 11 Policy Committee which meets several times a year, dealing 12 with what is printed by the Department of Energy and the 13 Office of Radioactive Waste Management. We need to address 14 repository, retrieval, storage and transportation issues.
15 I think that in terms of my participation, I'd 16 hope to see that other affected tribal governments will be -
17 - that the affected tribal government representatives will 18 be there themselves, in person, at these future meetings, ,
19 and that's as well as the national and maybe other ones.
20 That's my role here, is to see what's happening 21 and see who I can bring to the table. I would also like to 22 see that other people within the Federal agency role that 23 are here -- for instance, the EPA Indian coordinators from 24 the different regions, from Region IV, EPA, it's good to see 25 them here.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington (D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950-
46 1 There's a national Indian full native person and 2 the reason I say that is because there are these -- most of 3 the regional Indian coordinators serve two roles. One is A Federal facilities, coordinators as well as Indian issues 5 coordinators. So I'm going to serve two functions and then 6 they will overlap in this area.
7 It would be good to have them at the table, as 8 well as folks from the DOE affairs. In terms of what the 9 issues are, I would like to see -- that was one major issue, 10 I think, to increase participation.
11 The other is to recognize the unique culture of 12 this Federal relationship and always keep that in the back 13 of your minds and the minds of Indian people, since we are 14 on the front end of some of these problems, extraction and ,,
15 so forth. We gave up our lands under -- temporary, at the 16 outset, which is still in the control of the Federal 17 Government. These places contain religious sites. They 18 contain sacred areas. They contain water, natural foods, 19 medicine, places.
20 So in my mind and in the minds of the people, 21- there's no such thing as too clean an Indian country.
22 MS. "INCLAIRt My name is Mary Sinclair and I live 23 in Micnigan. I'm actively involved and chair of an 24 organization called Don't Waste Michigan. I've also been on 25 the National Energy Policy Committee of the Sierra Club for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 2G')06 h (202) 293-3950
47 1 a number of years, on the Radioactive Subcommittee on 2 Huclecr Issues.
3 I do have a couple of issues that I think should 4 be brought up here. I think there is a great need for an 5 overview of the whole decommissioning process. From reading -
d the information that was sent ahead, it seems to presume 7 chAL the problems of decommissioning are well understood and 8 that thay're all feasible.
9 I think that we have a lot to learn there. I 10 cited as an example to Michael Lesnick the document by the 11 World Watch Institute on decommissioning that gives a good 12 overview. I-think it's really necessary to have a good 13 overview before you can handle this information with any 14 kind of perspective or so that you're approaching reality. ,
15 The World Watch Institute publication was in 1986.
16 But a much more recent graphic description of the problems '
17 with dacommissioning is in the Wall street Journal of 18 January 25. I hope that we can all get a copy of that 19 particular article because it discusses the engineering 20 problems, as well as the costs. I think we should be clear 21 on those.
22 An exemple of how removed I think this information 23 is from the reality is the kind of case study that was given l 24 to us. It's such a small plant and it operated such a short 25 period of time that the information that was developed there l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L Coud Repoders 1612. K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 '
(202) 293 3950 ., -
48 1 is certainly just not relevant to the types of commercial 2 nuclear reactors, for exemple, that will have to be :
3 decommissioned or considered for decommissioning.
4 Then I would like to know, also, how this rule S that you're going to develop is going to differ from the 6 final rule that was promulgated in June of 1988 which also 7 talks about the general characteristics of decommissioning.
8 Then I would like to know what the relationship is 9 of the current effort to storage on every plant site to the~
10 whole decommissioning process and whether that is going to 11 be a major block to ever achieving restoring to non-12 restricted use and how that's going to be done.
13 KR. CEMBER: My name is Herman cember. I'm 14 representing the Health Physics Society today. That's the 15 society that professionals are engaged in trying to prevent 16 harmful effects from radiation uses while getting the 17 benefits from the uses.
18 I'm a Professor of Environmental Health 19 Engineering at Northwestern University, where I've been for 20 a number of years.
21 The issues that I would like to emphasize here, I 22 have two of them. one is that I'm concerned that we get 23 real and not hypothetical benefits and return for whatever-24 expenditure of our relatively -- not relatively, but the 25 limited resources that we have, both financial and i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20000 (202) 293-3950
49 1 intellectual and human resources.
2 It seems to no that it's not really in the public 3 interest to spend -- to expend these resources for 4 remediation of calculated or hypothetical health throats 5 that cannot be observed either now or in the fut'ure. I 6 think that whatever we do should be based on some result 7 that we could actually observe rather than on some 8 hypothetical calculation based on.one of several models that ,
9 we might choose.
10 So that's my issue number one. Again, I would 11 like to shepherd our resources and spend them wherever wo 12 get the most bang for the buck.
13 Then the second one is I think that the final--- I 14 would like to sec or emphasize that whatever final standards 15 we have are numerical, that they can be measured, that they 16 would not ba subject to different interpretations by lawyers 17 and that they should be based on the -- I think they should 18 be based on some numbers, but these numbers should be-based 19 on the distribution of backgrounds that we have and should -
20 - and the uncertainties involved in all of our measurements 21 and calculations, and should recognize the wide range of 22 background radiations to which people are exposed and look 23 at the effects from those backgrounds.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Mike Williams and I'm ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
50 1 the Manager of Nuclear Services and the principal Health 2 Physicist for Union Electric Company in St. Louis. I think 3 the issues that I'm interented in.have pretty well been 4 covered in the agenda and what others have said.
5 First of all, I guess the major issue in my mind,-
6 is establishing a standard which, while it appropriately:
7 protects the public health and safety and the environment, 8 also is reasonable with regard to implementation and with-9 regard to costs.
10 I do applaud the effort to come up with a standard i
11 or a generic rule.which NRC is trying to establish here :
12 through this process rather than a case-by-case basis.- But .
13 in pointing out that we've already done decommissioning and 1 14 they have been done on a case-by-case basis, we're not 15 really addressing a new issue here.
16 So I would like to see is build on the experience 17 that we have and the. knowledge that we have.and what has-18 already been proven to be a safe and effective 19 decommissioning, and go from there rather than reinventing 20 the wheel.
21 Also, along with the reasonableness-issue, I guess 22 my se.cond issue would be pretty much what Herman said, and 23 that is I think we need to look at' costs and benefits,- and 24 included in that would have to-be an assessment of what is 25 the true risk relative to the cleanup effort, and,-in '
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters:
1612 K. - Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,-- D. : C.i 20006 (202)_ 293-3950:
l l
51 !
l 1 looking at true risk, come up with what is the most 2 effective way to spend the resources to minimize that risk.
3 MR. RESCEK My name is Frank Rescet. I'm the 4 Radiation Protection Director for Commonwealth Edison.
5 Given the meeting is in our service territory, we welcome 6 the opportunity to participate today.
7 While Edison and its employees and their families 8 live in the service area and are a part of the community, we 9 share and fully support the desire for an effective 10 regulation that will protect the health and safety of the 11 community. We are participating today so that we can-learn 12 from the experiences of others, so that we can provide our 13 expertise in an open discussion on these important issues.
14 The issues in the agenda, I think, are well 15 thought out and are comprehensive in scope. To me, this 16 first issue this afternoon, the first cross-cutting issue is 17 the most important. That is I think the public can benefit.
18 the most from a regulation that provides well defined 19 standards and requirements.
20 Standards and requirements that will not only 21 protect the health and safety of the public, but that can be 22 measured against so that licensees can show and demonstrate 23 compliance to.
24 So in that regard, I agree with what has already 25 been said,_that we need standards and limits that are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
_(202) 293-3950
52 1 measurable and that we can ensure that we can demonstrate 2 compliance and then the NRC can do confirmatory measures and 3 also to show compliance.
4 Thank you.
5 MS. RAFFENSPERGER My name is Carolyn 6 Raffensperger. I worked for the Sierra Club for about eight 7 years. I'm currently President of the Environmental 8 Council, which is the coalition of all the environmental 9 groups in the State of Illinois.
10 But I think my claim to fame or infamy is that I 11 vas a member of the Mw Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 12 Facility Siting Commission here in Illinois, along with 13 Seymour Simon and Bill Hall. We just completed our work 14 December 31 of this year when we unanimously rejected a site 15 in Illinois for a disposal facility.
16 I have two concerns that I would like to raise.
17 The first is the questions of acceptable or reasonable to 18 whom. My guess is they're going to be in three different 19 groups and I'd like to speak here for the public.
20 Acceptable to the public? How do we reconcile that with 21 acceptable to the health physicists and to doctors? How do 22 we balance that with what's acceptable to industry?
23 Do we balance tha't? I think that the comments 24 about the BRC rulemaking are indicative of how fast the l
25 public can rise up if it's-not acceptable to the public.
l l ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950
53 ;
1 The second part of that is that there's an 2 intellectual leap from a standard to protecting the public ;
3 health, safety and welfare. That intellectual leap needs to:
4 be made explicit and clear. l 7
5 The second concern that I'd like to raise is the -
6 relationship of decommissioning to siting radioactive waste 7 facilities, especially the low level ones. I'm sitting next 8 to Commonwealth Edison, who I'm sure-has some major concerns.
9 about that, as well.
10 In looking at the siting of our low level wasta 11 disposal facility in Illinois, decommissioning.-and all of 12 the options open to decommissioning, especially the~ nuclear
?
13 power plants, is significant, both in terms of. volume and--
14 the curie content of that decommissioning waste. ,,
15 So I think that there's a lot of unknowns there 16 and I'd like to know how that's going to fit into this-17 particular rulemaking.
18 Thank you.
19 MR. BALoCCA: Good morning. My name is David 20 Balocca. I am currently the Director of the Matching Group, 21 Suburban West Chicago.
22 Some of the points this morning that-have been 23 brought up are valid and I have one-more to add. One issue 24 that interest's me is the development of the criteria and the-25 standards also include some level of implementation that the:
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
-1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
54 1 criteria and the standards are truly to protect human health ,
2 and safety down the road when the problems may arise and an 3 unrestricted site later becomes a hazard.
4 So we need to develop that type of implementation 5 level, as well. Thank you.
6 MR. ALLEN: I'm Richard Allen. I'm Manager of the 7 Office of Environmental Safety with the Illinois Department 8 of Nuclear Safety. Illinois is an Agreement State. One of 9 the issues which is most important to us, I think, is an 10 issue which NRC has laid out and defined very nicely, and 11 that is the issue of the fundamental objective, the approach 12 or combination approaches which could be used.
13 We have an additional concern in this area that we 14 stay focused on the primary issues. A lot of thesc 15 secondary is, sues that NRC has raised do require a lot of 16 thought, but one must approach this in a methodical manner.
17 I hope the discussions today will bring us to some 18 understanding of where we start and I believe where we start 19 is the fundamental objective.
20 The second issue which is of concern to us, which 21 I haven't heard mentioned yet, but it does appear in the NRC 22 issues paper, is what parameter are we going to agree to use 23 to describe limits or standards. Do we use risk, do we use 24 dose, do we use residual radioactivity? I l
25 This becomes an important issue because, to some l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
. Court Reporters !
1612 K.- Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 ,
(202) 293-3950 j
55 1 extent, it defines who plays. It defines who continues to 2 be involved and how many wheels we reinvent. So we think "
3 this is an important issue, as well.
4 MR. SHARKEY: My name is Bill Sharkey. I'm the 5 Manager of Radiological Protection and Industrial Safety at 6 ABB Combustion Engineering.
7 I think the pressing issue is that the standards 8 that come up need to be clear and measurable. Without clear 9 and measurable standards, I think more of our effort.is 10 devoted to consultants and regulatory review. So clear and 11 measurable standards will help prevent that.
12 The second issue, I think we should recognize the 13 site may not be cleaned up for unrestricted use and that 14 there should be a standard or provisions for the ,
15 institutional control after cleanup.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. FOSTER: My name is Don Foster. I'm City 18 Administrator for the City of West Chicago. I'm not here 19 with a lot of technical expertise as a lot of people at this 20 table have. I guess I'm here just to say that from my 21 perspective, the city has a low level radioactive site in 22 the city and around it. We've lived with this for a great 23 number of years, about 16 years.
24 Since the place has been closed, we've been 25 dealing with it and trying to get it closed. My concern to l
l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
56 1 bring to the Commission is the need to select some standard, 2 some number and stay with it. We've been dealing with the 3 standard that came out in -- they used in the late 1970s.
4 As the decommissioning plan has progressed, there's new 5 standards that are being considered now.
6 It's very frustrating from the city's perspective 7 to have these technical people, all of you sit here, and 8 nocody agrees at times. You change the numbers. And I have 9 citizens that don't understand that and we really suffer.
10 The city suffers from it and the citizens suffer and we feel 11 rather helpless. So, please, help us. That'e number one.
12 Number two is there's a need that we see for the 13 agencies to work together, and I think Mr. Richardson talked 14 about cooperating with the NRC, US EPA working toger.her in ,,
15 some method which would be very helpful, from our 16 perspective, or at least that people would cooperate, come 17 to some decision, and-work together on the issues.
18 MR. MINNAR: My name is Dave Minnar. I'm with the 19 Michigan Department of Public Health, with the Radiation 20 Control Agency in that state.
21 Among the many issues that I believe are 22 important, the two top ones, I guess, and they have been 23 somewhat touched upon already, one being maybe a little 24 expansion fo what was just mentioned on Federal agency 25 involvement.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 1 Washington, D. C. wou6 (202) 293-3950
57 1 An issue of_ concern to the State of Michigan and 2 perhaps many other states, as well, is that the states have, 3 for the most part, a responsibility for radiation-protection 4 to the citizens of their state, regardless of the source _of 5 radiation. That is, regardless of whether it's. covered by a 6 given particular Federal law or not.
7 Most state laws are written to give general 8 radiation protection responsibility to the state. As such, 9 an issue I think is important here is how comprehensive this 10 rulemaking activity is going to be. We've already learned 11 that EPA is more than just a participant. They are 12 interested in taking off in their own directions.
13 But we need to be concerned about standard-setting 14 in the area of decontamination, decommissioning, such that ..
15 we're equally protected, regardless of the kind of radiation 16 source, be it naturally-occurring radioactive material, be 17 it Federal facility operated and controlled material, be it 18 NRC or Atomic Energy Act material, regardless of the source 19 of radiation.
20 Standard-setting ought to set the technical and 21 legal basis for a comprehensive rulemaking. Additionally, I 22 believe the.t another issue that can be important here is one 23 of regarding waste disposal options. As we're all aware, 24 looking at low level radioactive waste management issues in 25 this country, that's one subset of activities involved in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
58-1- the' management of radioactive waste.
2 There.are'many other kinds of waste disposal 3 options available or technically feasible. And to1the 4 degree that decommissioning cannot be= fully considered 5 without considering waste disposal options,.I be'lieve=it 6 should be further addressed during the rulemaking'.
7 MR. HONEY: My name is Jack Honey. I'm with 8 Allied Signal in Metropolis, Illinois. I'm-the Manager of 9 Regulatory Affairs there. I've been with Allied for about 10 25 years.
11 Allied is involved in the business of converting 12 uranium ore concentrates to uranium fluoride. That's one 13 step one step in the nuclear fuel process. We have a-14 facility there of approximately a 1,000 acres and we operate 15 on about 50 of those. So one of these days we'll.be 16 involved in the decommissioning of that site, and that's our; 17 interest.
18 A couple of the issues that we think are relevant 19 and important. One-has already been voiced a number _of 20 times, but I'll repeat. That is we believe that reasonable 21 standards that are clear, concise and measurable' are-22 definitely needed so that there's no misunderstanding about 23 what the objective is in a decommissioning project,_and that 24 they tend to not be clouded with background radiation issues 25 or radon complexities.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)- 293-3950
59 1 The other thing that we think is-very important is 2 that the rules that are finally brought into being will not 3 have to be improved upon'by other Federal agencies or state 4 or local governments. We'd like to-think that once the rule 5 is out in front of us, that.that's what wa can start 6 planning for and working towards in our continuing-7 operations.
8 MR. THOMAS: I'm Bob Thomas. I'm here 9 representing the American Nuclear Society. I work at 10 Argonne National Laboratory, just southwest-here 20-some 11 miles. My title there is Program Coordinator and I think 12 that's a title they use for old guys who just get used for 13 most anything that comes along.
14 Anyway, I appreciate being here and being able to ,
15 represent the American Nuclear Society, which, as.you know, 16 is not only mostly engineering, but also a nuclear 17 scientific group and quite involved with the nuclear 18 reactors.
19 A couple of issues. Of course, most everything 20 has been touched on-by now. But I waslreally happy to hear 21 Allan say that we should have a unified Federal approach to 22 things, and I don't know whether that means that we will 23 have one unified document that will be both EPA /NRC 24 combined. I think that would be just great. I would like 25 to see that and I would like to see it along with what ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repode s 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
60 1 Ilerman said, based on science and maybe-have the 2 organization, which is the Committee on Interagency 3 Radiation Research and' Policy Coordination,-take a look at 4 it, at least their science panel. Even though they're not 5 involved with regulations, I think it might be a good idea.
6 And along with the unified approach, I would love 7 to see us get back to using one level for something rather 8 than two or three. We tend -- if you look at the 9 occupational limits these days, they tell you, oh, you can 10 have up to 50 millisleverts in a year, but don't go to more 11 than 20 millisieverts per year averaged over five years. So 12 everyone uses the 20.
13 I noticed the NRC uses the 100 millizem per year 14 for some of their decommissioning,-but then they throw in 15 the other 25 millirem on top of that as another limit. We 16 just don't seem to be satisfied with setting one level, one 17 limit, one guideline that looks good. We have to have 18 another one, like constraint level-and ALARA and all of 19 those things. It would be nice to have a unified approach.
20 And very quickly, I like what Al Johnson said-21 about what are we going to do about these sites that we 22 decommission in 1995 and then all of a sudden everyone'has 23 changed the quality factor. We're expressing-things in 24 terms of sieverts instead of grade and now someone comes 25 along and says, oh, I think the quality factor for health ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters '
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
61 IL ought to be 40 now.
2 So now you've decommissioned on one: basis and are 3 you. going to have to go-back and do twice.the job at ten -
4 times the amount of money. I think that's an-important 5 question.
6 MS. TREPAL: My name is Chris Trepal. I-work with-7 the Earth Day Coalition in Cleveland. We work mostly with-8 neighborhood and community groups in Northeast Ohio. We're 9 working specifically with neighborhood groups that have 10 discovered in two p*. aces in Kioga County that we have 11 radioactive waste dumps.
12 So I'm going to speak really from the. neighborhood
-13 and community-based position. When I asked folks what 14 issues they wanted me to bring up, they were very frank ,,
15 about it and they said that they would like a really clear 16 discussion about the chaos of the low level radioactive 17 waste facilities around the country.
18 Ohio is being asked to construct a facility. One 19 of the other speakers said that Illinois has- just decided 20 that their facility is unacceptable. What this neans to 21 people who actually are living on or near radioactive waste 22 facilities is that off-site disposal is not an option.-
23 I think that means a lot of discussions happen as 24 to what the options are. The second thing that really-25 impacts on the folks that I'm working with are the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., . Suite 300-Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
l 62 1 economics. I think someone referred to Monday's Wall Street 2 Journal article about the economics of the nuclear power 3 facilities. The same things happen at two-waste facilities 4 that I'm dealing with.
5 Economics is clearly the very first thing that's 6 considered and drives all the choices and options. I think 7 we've got to just be really clear aoout that and discuss it 8 right up front.
9 The other thing that folks wanted me to bring up, 10 and this is simply because I'm working with people who are 11 living right next door or on top of these waste facilities, 12 are the discussions of the increasing -- possibilities of 13 increasing exposures or releasing of radioactive waste to 14 the environment. ,
15 They would like a very frank discussion of zero 16 release and return to background standards, simply because 17 some of the issues that we're dealing with, there are very 18 shortlived radionuclides and there are also some very long-19 term radionuclides involved and they're apples and oranges.
20 So I really think we need to recognize that.
21 MR. ROYAL: My name is Henry Royal. I'm an 22 internist in nuclear madicine physician. I'm the Associate 23 Director of Nuclear Medicine at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis 24 and Associate Professor of Radiology at Washington 25 University.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
63 1 My major interests are in-health care' reform, 2 public health policy, and in environmental issues. I have a 3 special interest.in the health effects of radiation.. -I was 14 the co-leader of an international team of scientists and 5 physicians who have studied the health effects of the 6 Chernobyl accident.
7 I've had the opportunity to lecture in Hiroshima, 8 Japan. So I was able-to visit the atomic bomb memorial and 9 see firsthand some of the dark side of the atom. I will be 10 speaking at the end of February at a conference that's being 11 held in Washington, D.C., entitled Physicians and the 12 Environment. It's an attempt to get physicians more 13 involved in environmental issues.
14 The two issues that I'd like to see us' discuss- ,,
15 are, number one, the benefits of radiation in medicine, and, 16 number two, the environmental impact of radioactivity. Let 17 me just expand on what I think these two issues are all.
18 about.
19 It's undeniable that the health benefits'from the 20 use of radiation greatly outweigh any of the health risks 21 that we'll be talking about over the next two days when we 22 talk about decommissioning.
23 The dilemma that we face is how can we minimize 24 the small health risks without jeopardizing the great health-25 benefit. If unnecessary resources are diverted to protect ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)'293-3950
~
'l 1 ourselves from small-risk, we won't-have the resources i to; 2 protect ourselves from-large risk.
3 In terms of the environmental. impact of 4 radioactivity, I'd like to remind everyone that the Keystone-5 center is located in Colorado and that-the natural 6 background radiation in Colorado is about 100' millirems more 7 per year than it is in Florida.
8 When we talk about what the' radiation limits are.
9 going to be for decommissioning,1we'll probablyfend up-10 talking about radiation doses that are considerably.less ,
11 than Barbara Stinson is exposed to every day _of her life-in 12 Colorado.
13 Over the next two days, I really do hope that we:
~
14 can all work together to minimize the risk from radiation 15 vithout jeopardizing the great medical benefits.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. BALL: I'm Irv Ball and-I represent the Kioga 18 County, Ohio-Board of Health. That's in the Cleveland: area.
19 Cur particular facilities that we have dealt with and our 20 involvement are due to some previous-facilities that Chris
- 21 Trepal mentioned that are now in the process of-22 decommissioning.
23 Part of what we would like to see out of this 24 particular discussion, and, again, it has.been mentioned l-25 before, obviously,_the need to clearly identify some L
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L _
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington, D. C. 20006 l
o (202) 293-3950:
~65 1 measurable standards, something that can be justified.
2 And I think beyond that, that enables people, 3 whether it's the regulatory agencies, whether it's the-4 citizen groups, or whether it's the contractors involved, to-5 have some clearly defined direction of how to go about .
6 getting a final cleanup or decommissioning of their sites.
7 One of the overall ridit.g issues that we have seen 8 that has created an awful lot of difficulty for our 9 situation, and I think this is also echoed by Mr. Foster, we 10 are very encouraged to see that the NRC and the Federal EPA 11 are working together and closely on this issue.
12 Part of the difficulty we see there, though, is 13 then when a set of standards does get developed, assuming 14 that we can get some parallel standards and clarity, that .,
15 further has the opportunity to get broken down on the state 16 and the local level by the various state and local agencies.
17 What we would like to see is obviously some clear 18 authority out of the Federal regulatory agencies that 19 clearly identifies the roles of also the state and the local 20 agencies. Not that they would be excluded, but that the 21 authority to proceed on decommissioning and the other issue 22 of waste disposal that may not necessarily be part of the 23 decommissioning, process of radioactivity waste, those two 24 issues need to be clarified and we would like to see that 25 happen out of this conference.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 -
66 1 MR. DUROFF: Good morning. My name is Mark 2 Duroff. I'm Manager of Environmental _ Safety and Regulatory 3 Affairs-for Amersham in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
4 Amersham manufactures radiopharmaceuticals for use in 5 diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine.
6 We also manufacture radio-labeled compounds used 7 in life science and medical research and sealed sources used' 8 in quality and safety assurance.
9 The two issues that we're most concerned with are 10 as follows. Firstly, regulations should.be developed which-11 ensure protection of the public and the environment. These 12 regulations should be based on standards derived from 13 recommendations of competent scientific organizations, such 14 as the International Commission on Radiological Protection 15 and the National Council on Radiation Protection and 16 Measurements. These standards should be related to clearly _
17 defined measurable quantities.
18 Secondly, we must be careful to consider the 19 impact new regulations could have on society as a whole.
20 The cost and total risk of cleanup should be balanced 21 against the benefits to the public. Remedial actions to the 22 point of diminishing returns must not come at.the cost of 23 .the inability to continue medical research to find the cures 24 for cancer, AIDS, and other diseases.
25 Most of the recent advances in medicine would not-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders
-1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washirgton, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950:
67 1 ha're been possible had these' radio chemicals not been-21 available to the research community..
3 We must continue to be able to provide,_at 4 reasonable cost,-diagnostic and therapeutic 5 radiopharmaceuticala and be able to employ these highly-6 effective tools in ti e diagnosis and treatment of disease.
7 I_think everybody in this room has a responsibility to 8 ensure that we are protected from the potential hazards of 9 radioactivity. However, we are all entitled to the benefits 10 of modern medicine and its continued progress and ;
11 development.
12 I express my appreciati a to be able to U 13 participate in this workshop and hope that the. effort'will 14 be a constructive one. Thank you.
15 MS. HIATT: Good morning. My name-is Susan Hiatt.
16 I'm the Director of the Ohio Citizens for Responsible 17 Energy. I'm from Mentor, Ohio. OCRE is'a non-profit'public 13 interest group that specializes in research and advocacy on 19 nuclear safety and public policy measures.
20 We've participated to a-great deal, a great' extent 21 for about the past 12 years in proceedings of the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission.
23 Our two issues are I'd like to see standards and 24 criteria developed that.will stand the test of time. So 25 that'20 years from now, 40 years from now, a site that was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
- (202) 293-3G50 -
. . -,. - - , - -- ~ . .
i
.68 1 cleaned up and was thought to pose. an. acceptable risk due tio
-2 batter technologies or better understanding-of the risks:of.
3 ~ radioactivity,Lwe'd now; find that as unacceptable. 1I--think 4 we need to avoid having the problem of-going back to these -
5~ sites and having to do things over.-- .
6 The second issue is what do weldo~with' sites that-7 cannot be cleaned up with present technology for 8 unrestricted release.- We have to have some type of 9 restrictions over these and how do we handle it.
10 Thank you.
m Good morning. My,name is' Dave' Kraft.--
~
11 MR. KRAFT:
12 I'm with Nuclear Energy Information Service in Evanston, 13 Illinois. We're a small, non-profit: energy < education- [
14 organization and environmental group. ..
15 I want to raise not only-two issues-from the 16 agenda.in a contextual way, but also make a: comment on the-17 process, as well. Without getting into too:muchfdetail, IL 18 would just echo what Carolyn Raffensperger.said and:-under-19 the' banner of to whom, and that addresses many-different: ,
? 20 aspects, cost, benefits, effects, regulations,..who doesilt-21 apply to. The to whom issue I think is:one contextual; thing'
[
~ 22 that needs to be looked at carefully-and perhaps-broadened--
23 in some instances.
24 The second I think was already brought up or at ,
25 least alluded to by Bob Thomas and Henry Royal, and that is i
1 l-i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters I
1612 K. Street, N.W.,_ Suite 300 .
Washington,- D. C. 20006
. , m . -_ __ _
-(202)- 293-3950
, a.; a s ps>
4 - ...4u -.-
- ~k A*M -4 g.
u 4
. 69?
1 the-idea that any' regulations or criteria'are goingLtolbeL ,
2- builtton_the shifting sands of our understanding.of-thel -
3 '
health effects of low dose, low' levels of radiations--
4 We think we have a fairly good understanding of'
-5 what some of these affects-are now, but if you-takefa:look'-
6 at the long-term trend.of understanding, the: standards 7 always seem to go lower.and lower as we getfadditional'. --
d 8 information, as we rehash data,-as we apply new principles.-
9 That's a contextual point that I think needs to be borne-in-10 mind in any development of criteria. -
+
11 The process comment I have, I guess,:is directed-12 towards the NRC in terms of what you're attempting-to do by-. -
13 holding these public-meetings, these workshops. -I 14 understand you're a-little nervous about'it. It's-the first ,
15 time out of the blocks doing this kind of_ thing for the NRC, a
16 and that's understandable.
17 Many.of us would like to think;that.this.is:.an 18 approach that is up front to-begin_with and perhaps,will be; 19 continued on other issues, as well. But-I'have.to. warn you 20 that we also have a: context, a historical context that we're=
- 21 operating in dealing with Federal agencies.
22 I think the National Energy Strategy is a_goodl
- 4 23 case in point, where 10,000 witnesses screamed loud and -
24 clear that the-primary focus should-be energy efficiency, -
25 -conservation and promotion of renewables,~and we got a bill; ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street,- N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 1202)-293-3950' , . .~
.T..
70-1 that came back saying coal, nuclear and oil and then we'll 2 get to the other ones,-if we can.-
3 You're fighting that context and I just wanted to 4 point that out, that I think individuals both within the
~
5 industry itself, as well as environmentalists and government 6 regulators are going to be looking at this and asking the 7 question is this -- are you really interested in hearing 8 this or will you go back -- not you specifically, but the 9 agency go back and write rules the way they feel.
10 That's a real concern and you have a precedent-11 setter here that you need to take a look at.
12 Thank you.
13 MR. OWEN: My name is Bob Owen and I'm Chief of 14 the Bureau of Radiological Health of the Ohio Department of ,
15 Health. We're primarily responsible for the control of 16 radiation within the State of Ohio which is not already 17 controlled by the NRC.
18 I have two issues that I'm certainly concerned 19 about. One is on-site disposal and the concern-about, not 20 only from the standpoint of Ohio as a host state and a 21 regional disposal facility, but also how that's going to 22 mesh with the unrestricted use standards.
23 Also,.we believe that there should be an adequacy 24 of protection relative to that issue and also should possess 25 the same degree of protection as even the regional disposal
. ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
71 1 facility. I'm not saying that it should be the same, but 2 the same " degree" of protection.
3 The'other issue is that we're. telling folks as the 4 host-state we need a single disposal facility in order to-5 preclude the 57 other-generation sites so that w'e don't_have 6 57 sites, we have only one. But if we espouse on-site 7 disposal, obviously, we certainly go that philosophy.
8 That's maybe beyond the health physics: concern.
9 Another issue is the flexibility of the standards.
10 I feel that they need to be flexible enough to address state 11 and local concerns and also site-specific issues that arise,_
12 and also to address changing technology. And if there is a 13 change in the dose response relationship down the road, once 14 again, as a provision of 10 CFR Part 20 covers this.
15 Also, as Johnson and others have mentioned, I feel 16 that there needs to be flexibility to the extent that it 17 incorporates these things that we are not having to revisit 18 the sites 10, 15, 20 years down the road and redo the same 19 tasks.
20 MS. RUSSELL: My name is Pam Russell and I'm here 21 from the Environmental Protection-Agency. My chief reason 22 for being here is to hear what all of you have to say in 23 terms of what are the issues in this area and what is your 24 opinion about issues.
25 I would like to point out that the agency very ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612. K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-72.
1 much does want to hear that. In addition to Allan 2 Richardson, I'm accompanied by colleagues from our 3 headquarters office,. Nick Lailas, as well as from-Region V, 4 Jack Barnett and his staff, 5 So that if you feel that you would like to corner 6 any one of us at any time and express your concerns and 7 express what your particular take on those issues is, we 8 want very much to hear that.
9 We may_not be able to give you-definitive answers 10 to your questions, but it is most helpful to us to hear what-11 those questions are.
(
12 Thank you very much.
13 MR. COOL: Good morning. I'm Donald Cool. I'm 14 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Nuclear 15 Regulatory Research. That maybe disguises the real-reason 16 which I'm here, which is in the end, after after we have 17 heard all of the discussions, the reasons for going with 18 various approaches, it will be my job,_ I and my staff, to 19 try and cift through those things, look at all of_the things 20 which have been discussed'around here and prepare some .
7 71 proposals that will actually be considered by the 22 Commission.
23 So that drives, in a sense, the things that I'm i 24 particularly looking for here around this table in the next l
25 couple of days, which is, first, the how of establishing the ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud Reponers i 1612. K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950
4.A ,J m* 3. mg a,.. g a %. # A 7
, 73 -
1 criteria. A lot of the issues 1that have been discussed
-2 around here I most certainly agree with.
3- What' kind of: approach-do we use?--_What kindLof.
4 -numbers-to.be used,-the methodology for putting that-5 together, which-drives'whether or not-it is fle51blo, 6 whether or not it does have the ability to deal with:
7 potential' changes-in health effects: estimators,-some'of-8 those sorts of things.
9 The second issue than is'the why for the 10 approaches and the suggestions, and that'is, in-my view, -
11 every bit as important as the-discussions that may 12 particularly focus on the how, because as we go about-13 preparing whatever proposal it is, we're going to have to 5 14 have a rationale for why we did what'we did.
.15 What I'm particularly interested in hearing here 16 is not.only your particular proposals,.but your rationale 17 behind those proposals, why they will work, why1other' things 18 will not work, what. boxes we might run ourselves intoTif we 19 proceed down a particular pathway, so that we~can try and?
20 understand and generate something which will be robust over 21
~
the course of. time, that will stand the~ test of-time and the 22 rationale behind that.
23 So I'm.really looking' forward to hearing both of' 24 those things come out in the discussions here today..
25 MR.. RICHARDSON: LI've already been introduced. My.-
ANN' RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. ~ Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202);293-3950
74 1 title is Deputy Director for Federal Guidance in the office-2 of Radiation Programs.
3 I have two major concerns about these issues.we'll-4 be discussing in this workshop. One of them has'to do with 5 what I perceive as a basic conflict between the philosophy -
6 that underlies radiation protection and the philosophy'that 7 underlies chemical -- that controls chemical hazards.
8 And this becomes a problem because in the area of 9 Superfund cleanups, these two philosophies of protection are 10 in direct conflict. Let me explain what I mean by that.
11 In radiation protection, we adopt an upper limit, 12 100 millirems or 500 millirems or whatever, and then go 13 through a process which we called ALARA, which is_to say we 14 get as far as reasonably as we can below-those numbers. ,,
15 It's a top-down approach.
16 In the area of chemical protection, and this is -
17 -and both of these are worldwide -- we start at the bottom.
18 We say our risk objective is something like ten-to-the-19 minus-four to ten-to-the-minus-six lifetime risk. And then 20 when we have to, we make exceptions end allow more risk than 2i that.
22 Let me point out, for example, that a ten-to-the-23 minus-four lifetime risk is three millirems. So the 24 conflict becomes immediately obvious.
25 We have to find a way to stitch together those two ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 2000S (202) 293-3950
75 1 -protection philosophies because they are in conflict in the 2 cleanup-of contaminated sites.--So I will be very interested 3 in how the. discussion goes'en those two.
4 The other area is a very practical one. We've 5 talked about and in our cross-cutting issues we're going to 6 be talking about what is the level of risk that we're trying 7 to achieve. Then after we've made that decision,-if we can 8 get there, we then have to decide-how to express that in a 9 standard. We can express it in the abstract as a risk 10 level, which is what Superfund does, actually, or we can 11 express it in terms of the dose that that represents, or we 12 can express it in terms, as I've heard around the' table 13 several times here, a much practical quantity, the amount of 14 radioactivity that's left behind, either in terms of 15 concentration or total quantity.
16 Now, there are tradeoffs as you go along that line 17 and I think it would be useful for us to be careful when we 18 talk about those during this workshop. On the one hand, you 19 get a much more easily implemented standard as you go to 12 0 work with concentrations or quantity in soil, for example.
21 On the other hand, you increase the degree of 22- arbitrariness because what happens it-that you-get further 23 and further away from your original risk objective because 24 the risks that are associated with a given concentration of 25 radioactivity in the soil will be very site-specific and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
=Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
_(202) 293-3950 _ _. __ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
.76 1 will vary all over the map, depending on what the particular-2 situation is.
3 So that's my second issue. How far should we go 4 in the direction of practicality and how far away from our 5 risk objective should we carry this?
6 MS. STINSON: Thank you all. Before we take a 7 quick break, we want to take an opportunity to go around the 8 room quickly and have people just identify who you are and 9 your affiliation, so we can all know who is present today.
10 MR. LOUS: Bill Lous, Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission.
12 MR MACK: I'm Bob Mack. I'm also with the 13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission at Headquarters.
14 MR. BURKLIN: Bruce Burklin, Siemens in ,,
15 Washington.
16 MR. MEDLING: Scott Medling, Southern California 17 Edison, Southern California.
18 MR. .BARNETT: Jack Barnett, EPA.
19 MR, SEIKEN: Stan Seiken. I'm a consultant to the 20 Department of Energy, Office of Waste Management and 21 Environmental Remediation.
22 MR. TILBROOK: Roger Tilbrook, Argonne National 23 Lab-and American Nuclear Society.
24 MR. FASNACHT: Dick Fasnacht, NUS Consulting.
25 MS. ALLOWAY: Pam Alloway, Nuclear Regulatory ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1812. K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-77.
1 Commission, Region III.
2 MR.=STRASMA: Jan Strasma, Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission, Region III.
4 MR. HERZOG: Chris Herzog, Commonwealth Edison.
5 MR. MacRAE: Walt MacRae, American Electric Power.
6 MR. SCHMITT: Don Schmitt, NUMARC.
7 MS. HENDRICKS: Lynnette Hendricks, Nuclear-8 Management, NUMARC.
9 MR. NAUGHTON: Bill Naughton, Commonwealth Edison.
10 MS. VINCENT: Mary Vincent, Commonwealth. Edison.
11 MR. JOHNSON: Doug' Johnson, Wisconsin Electric.
12 MS. WHITE: Mary Gerry White, the American Nuclear 13 Society, based at Argonne National Laboratory.
14 MR. MORRIS: Bill Morris, Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission.
16 MR. JACKSON: Harold Jackson, Sigma Chemical.
17 MR. SOLENBERGER: Dennis Solenberger, Nuclear 18 Regulatory Commission.
19 MS. WEBER: Marilyn Weber, American Nuclear 20 Society Staff.
21 MR WALD: ' Gary Wald, Commonwealtn Edison.
22 MR. ROTH: Paul Roth, Commonwealth. Edison.
23 MR. RAGUS: Rick Ragus, Commonwealth Edison.
24 MR. TRAVERSO: Jay T averso, Cleveland.
25 MR. VOLZA: I'm Pat Volza with Synterior Energy ANN RILEY & -ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950
78 1 Corporation.
2 -MR. LAMBACHER: Al Lambacher, Synterior.-
3 MR. LAILASt ~ Nick Lailas, EPA, Washington.
4 MR. RALSTON: Lowell Ralston,.SCA Consulting.
5 MR. OGLE: Russ Ogle, SEC Donohue.
6 MS. KUYAWA: Lydia Kuyawa, SEC Donohue.
7 MS. VASSILAKIS: Rita Vassilakis,'SEC Donohue..
8 MR. MYERS: Ed Myers, Toledo Edison.
9 MR. BAKER: Bryan Baker, Amersham Metaphysics.
10 MR. DAVIS: Monty Davis, United Energy Services.
11 M2.'EGGETT: Don Eggett, Commonwealth Edison.
12 MS. LESNIAK: Marcia Lesniak, Commonwealth-Edison.
13 MR. TRUBATCH: Sheldon Trubatch,-Winston &.Strawn.
14 MR. MALARO: Jim Malaro, Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission.
16 MR. BRUSS: Bill Bruss,-Bechtel Power.
17 MR. MITCHELL: Jim Mitchell, EPA.
18 MR. ENGLISH: Bob English, Consumers Pouer..
19 MR. SERAFIN: John Serafin, MARS Environmental 20 Solutions.
21 MR. WIEDEMAN: Darrel Wiedeman, NRC, Region III.
22 MR. NORELIUZ: Chuck Noreliuz, NRC, Region III, 23 MR. WARD: Paul Ward, Abbott Laboratory.
24 MR. LOUDEN: Pat Louden, NRC, Region III.
25 MR. HOLLEY: Wes Holley, NRC, Region IV.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
79 1 MR. SCHERER: Ed Scherer, ABB Combustion 2 Engineering.
3 MS. STEVENSON: Sandy Stevenson, Shred Pax 4 Corporation.
5 MR. RICHMOND: Don Richmond, Wisconsin Public 6 Service Corporation.
7 MR. REINHART: Mark Reinhart, Wisconsin Public 8 Service.
9 MS. SHOLEEN: Charlotte Sholeen. I'm a Health.
10 Physicist at Argonne National Lab.
11 MR. MUNYON: Bill Munyon, Health Physicist at 12 Argonne National Lab.
13 MS. COTTRAL: I'm Bridgette Cottral'with the U.S.
14 Army, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois.
15 MR. LOOMIS: John Loomis, Sargent & Lundy, 16 Chicago.
17 MR. KLAZUIA: Anthony Klazuia, Sargent-& Lundy, 18 Chicago.
19 MR. IGRGOLIS: Howard Margolis, University of 20 Chicago, 21 MR. MOCKING: Bruce Mocking, TERRA.
22 MS. JOHNSON: Betty Johnson, LWV or Rockford.
23 MR. LICKUS: Roland Lickus, NRC, Region III, 24 MR. SWANSON: Steve-Swanson, Chicago Tribune.
25 MR. BOLAND: Bob Boland, Mallinckrodt Specialty 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)'293-3950
80' 1 Chemicals in St. Louis.
2 MR. KILLAR: Felix Killar, Director, Nuclear 3 Programs, U.S. CEA.
4 MR. SCOTT Bill Scott, Savanna _ Army Depot..
5 MR. PETERS: Scott Peters, U.S. CEA.-
6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Harry Cunningham, NRC,
'7 Headquarters.
8 MR. LEE: Bill Lee, DOE-Chicago, Environmental' 9 Regulation and Waste Management.
10 MS. STINSON: Thank you. I want to thank you all' 11 for your comments. Before we take a short break, I just 12 want to mention that I think in running around the table 13 this morning, and we're going to ask, Henry, if you don't 14 mind, holding your comment. Perhaps it will be appropriate 15 in the discussion as we continue or you can raise it right 16 after the break.
17 As we ran around the table, it became clear to 18 Mike and I that we certainly got the spectrum of issues that '
19 we've heard in our discussions present for discussion at the 20 table today.
21 I just want to mention a few of the things that we '
22 heard to try to capture the range of issues that we're going 23 to discuss. Clearly, people are interested in the 24 establishment of a clear and measurable standard that-25 establishes real benefits.
J ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
4 1
8 15
'l We hearo mention of need:for;an= acceptable-l'evel-
- 2: that'is!acceptabletothepublicandhas} f specific
~
3 -implementation ascurances.
I T also-heard that there;needs to,
~
4 -be a. strong-technical basis,for thisistan'dard and that in.- ,
-e . . . ..
our discussions,fwe'll examine lthe= issues:around' health?
5
-6 protection and economic consequences,_aconomic' costs'..
7 Protection of the' health benefits. derived?from:-
8- medical uses of radioactive material is'; clearly an' issue'of- g 9 importance to address, as well.as-identifyingitho roles ~of ~
u 10 the state and local--agencies.-in implementation of a standard: } ,
- 11 for-all applications.
12 In addition, we talked;about.--!we: heard: people-13 mention what..to-do-with sites that'are' unsuitable fori 14 unrestricted use,.as well as a mention.of-NRC's 15 responsibility to actually use.the~information.'that'sL 16 presented and-discussed during..this two-day meeting.and-the-
- 17 other workshops.
18- In addition, the.need f_orikind of an interesting-19- balance that needs-to be struck between-identifying?a 20 standard-that is flexible enough to address:the'Tchanges in
. 21- technology and.information'that's. received _over time',.as + -
vell as-a standard-where-indisiduals,-where--companies:and
~
22 . q 23L licensees'have-a sense of. predictability about the' q 24 application'of the standard.
25 I think the comment, the phrase that se_ heard.from
- ANN RILEY '& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters-:
1612 K. Street, N.W. Suite 300.
. Washington,- D. C. 20006
- (202)- 293-3950. .
82 1 a couple of people is standards that stand the test of time.
2 As well, we'are looking at implications for waste management 3 and the potential conflicts in philosophies for development 4 of protection standards that have been used'by the Federal 5 agencies in the past.
6 So-that's quite a spectrum of issues to discuss.
7 I think that a lot of them can be addressed in the context 8 of the agenda. During the break, we're going to look at 9 whether people raised issues that, in fact, are not clearly 10 in the agenda that we have set out for us now and we'll get 11 back to you as to how we'll address those.
12 Any comments around the table before we close for 13 a ten-minute break?
14 [No response.]
15 MS. STINSON: Be back at 11:15, 16 [ Recess.)
17 MS. LEWIS: Can we go ahead and get started, 18 please? This part of the agenda entails a couple of 19 presentations to provide some additional background 20 information. I'm going to turn it over to Mike Weber.
21 MR. WEBER: Thank.you, Connie. I wanted ~to 22 express some appreciation to Dr. Sinclair because she gave 23 me a nice introduction to my little presentation here. I 24 want to emphasize at the outset that these presentations 25 aren't meant to be the focus of certainly this workshop.
ANN - RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
m 1
/ >
d "
' 83 1- These are only-so;that-there'is:somewhat'more1of a common:<
' understanding about'somaiof'the aspects,-because we-do come' l
~
2-3: to the-table-fron=different perspectives. >
4 'Some of us have been; involved.in-NRC licensing: 1!
5 -actions, others haven't. It would just be. helpful for'all- y
~
6 more or-less-speaking the same language or,Dif we don't1 M 7 agree-to the same language, at least we recogn'ize where, 8 those differences may lie.
9 The-focus:of my presentation ~is' going to belon'the 10 decommissioning process,-definition _of decommissioning'that ,
11 has-been established from NRC's regulations, and then turn'
-12 briefly to-the scope of this rulemaking_in terms.of what' 13 -facilities-the outcome would apply to and alsolto what 14- facilities typically go through a more rigorous: ,
15 decommissioning: process, and touch briefly'on..the' case 16 studies that;the participants received by mail.
17 We have copies _available at the' table this morning 18 for the observers.- Because those case: studies,Eit wasJthe 19 Commission's int'ent that they_ provide some practical-
-2 0 - insights and'what have we learned ~so'far~today. They-
- 21 weren't-meant-to be all inclusive.-
22 Dr. Sinclair pointed out that certainly the.
p 23 Pathfinder decommissioning case study is not representative 24 of_a large power? reactor decommissioning, and we totally =
g 25 agree.-
- ANN- RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
._ Court _ Reporters-1612 K. Street,_ N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. L C. 20006 (202) 293 3950-
84 1 Unfortunately, there haven't been any large power 2 reactor decommissioning projects that we could draw 3 practical insights from because we haven't gone through that 4 proces s yet.
5 MR. CEMBER: What about research reactors? We've 6 decommissioned some of those.
7 MR. WEBER: Yes. Again, the case studies aren't -
8 - I'll address that, but they're not fully encompassing.
9 There are other alternatives that we could have used as 10 examples. The intent wasn't to be fully encompassing. It 11 was just meant to provide some ideas about where and what 12 facilities have been decommissioned, what kind of insights 13 havo we gained through those processes.
14 The definition of decommissioning is established 15 in NRC's regulations. It was establinhed in 1988, after a 16 decado long rulemaking. This is a pataphrase, although I 17 believe it's pretty true to w,;at's actually in the 18 regulations.
19 A couple words I want to focus on ulter I read it.
20 Decommissioning is a process for safely removing a nuclear 21 facility from operation and reducing residual radioactivity 22 to a level that permits unrestricted use of 'che site, as 23 well as termination of license.
24 The key words in that phrase I call your a*tention 25 to, it's a process that we're talking about. There are, in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
m+ je-a 1
85 1 fact, many steps in decommissioning. And radiological 2 criteria for decommissioning, which we're here about in this 3 workshop, are key to that process because they provide the 4 bottom line numbers to which all these activities are 5 directed. -
6 Those are the criteria against which whatever 7 residual contamination exists at the site is compared to 8 determine whether a site is suitable for unrestricted use.
9 That's the second phrase I call your attention to.
10 That's been established by rule. It's not simply 11 a goal. That is the standard for decommissioning in terms 12 of what status the facility should be in at the end of the 13 decommissioning process. There is a large degree of 14 conversation right now about is that a fair end' point, , ,
15 particularly for Department of Energy facilities. That's 16 really not our main focus here today.
17 But as we've already heard going around the table, 18 a number of people have raised this questions what do you do 19 in those situations where it's simply not feasible to clean 20 up to that level. And then the goal of decommissioning for 21 the licensee, of course, is to terminate the license, to get 22 out of the continuino obligations, to maintain that license 23 and to maintain all the different measures that the NRC 24 requires or an Agreement State requires of the licensee.
25 It's important to keep those aspects in mind. I ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 .
\
89 ;
1 already, there are many parties that are involved or l 2 interested in this process.
3 This slide just depicts major groups of those 4 entities. We have tribal governments that may be effected 5 if the lands are on tribal lands or near tribal lands. NRC, 6 certainly. The state agencies, if it's an Agreement State 7 or even if it's not an Agreement State, state agencies may 8 have some jurisdiction over the decommissioning.
9 The Environmental Protection Agency. doe may be 30 involved in some cases, Department of Energy, if the 11 material is to be transferred to the Department of Energy or 12 if the Department of Energy is to have some continuing 13 obligation for whatever material may be Icft behind.
14 Shareholders, if it's a corporation that's 15 publicly traded. Environmental groups, which certainly are 16 concerned about the environment and the protection of the 17 public. Employees of the licensee which may either have to 18 conduct the decommissioning action or may be out of work 19 because of the decommissioning action. Elected officials 20 elected by members of the public, or local agencies, zoning 21 boards and other entities, and certainly the public.
22 All of these people and groups have a role to play 23 as a stakeholder in the decommissioning action. In that 24 light, it's useful to compare NRC's decommissioning process 25 with EPA's procens under Superfund, the Comprehensive ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293 3950 .
90 1 Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, as 2 another entity, because I know a lot of the licensees raised 3 the prospect of, well, even if I clean up NRC standards, am 4 I going to get caught down the road as a potential Superfund 5 site if I don't do an adequate job at this time.
6 You can see that there are a fair number of 7 similarities between the processes. I've not used all of 8 the EPA standard words, but some of you are more familiar 9 with the Superfund process, perhaps, than with NRC's 10 decommissioning process and it's useful to compare the two 11 to get some sense -- so there is some consistency in how the 12 agencies go about their work.
13 EPA's process begins with an information 14 collection stage, site characterization of sorts. That 15 leads to ranking the site, then listing the site on the 16 national priorities list, the HPL, to enable remedial action 17 to be conducted under the Superfund program.
18 That leads to the preparation of follow-on site 19 characterization work and assessment of the feasibility of 20 alternative remedial actions in the RIFS, remedial 21 investigation feasibility study. All of that builds to a 22 decision on what is the remedy that's appropriate-for that 23 site. It's done through a public process.
24 That leads to the design of the remediation and, 25 indeed, the conduct of the remediation, and then finally ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
86 1 mentioned that this definition was established by ,
2 rulemaking. We refer to the regulation that came out in 3 1988 as the decommissioning rule. It covered a variety of ,
4 aspects. Desides the definition, it covered such things as 5 the planning process for decommissioning and the steps that 6 are involved kind of in an overview fashion of what reports 7 have to be submitted when and to whom and what's done with 8 that information.
9 It addressed financial assurance aspects for 10 decommissioning to ensure that licensees had the financial 11 wherewithal to pay for the small fee step process to return 12 the site for unrestricted use. It addressed recordkeeping 13 requirements, what information has to be retained by the 14 licensee to support the decommissioning process throughout 15 the operational life, and it covered license termination 16 procedures.
17 But important to our discussions in this workshop, 18 it did not address radiological criteria for 19 decommicsioning, and that's what we're here to talk about.
20 Now, that doesn't mean we haven't been decommissioning or we l
l 21 haven't been regulating decommissioning, because, in fact, 22 we have. We've been using a variety of practices and j 23 guidelines and criteria documents that have been available.
24 As Chip said, they've been developed over the last two 25 decades.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Sune 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 87 1 Those numbers, those criteria are not necessarily 2 consistent with each other. That doesn't mean they're not 3 providing protection of the public health and safety. It 4 simply means that they've been developed through a. variety 5 of different mechanisms.
6 In part, we're here today and tomorrow to discuss 7 some of the issues associated with if we went beyond thLt 8 step, what are the issues that will need to be addressed.
9 Turning briefly to the process, I've outlined it 10 on this chart and it's in a very summary form. There are 11 many smaller steps that go in here. But I just. wanted to 12 briefly outline some of the more significant steps.
13 After the facility ceases operations, it-14 undertakes site characterization, developing basic 15 information about the extent of radiological contamination 16 beyond that which is already collected during the 17 operational lifetime. The environmental charactoristics,are 18 determined. These are the characteristics that effect the 19 long-term fate of the radioactive material that might be 20 left behind or the exposure of individuals that might occur-21 after the license is terminated.
22 That's done in the site characterization step.
23 That all builds to develop the plans for decommissioning.
24 Having some idea of the extent of contamination and the 25 nature of contamination, the licensee is in a position to-1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Recoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
88 1 plan what will be done with this contamination in order to 2 accomplish the objective of releasing a site for 3 unrestricted use.
4 That leads to the actual decommissioning, the 5 steps taken, such as scrabbling a wall, taking off the outer 6 layer of concreto, tearing down buildings, transferring 7 volumes of waste to a licensed low level vaste disposal 8 facility, the basic hands-on decommissioning work.
9 It's at that point, again, and all throughout this 10 process that these radiological criteria for decommissioning 11 are so vital, because they provide the speed limits or the 12 targets against which all these efforts are directed.
13 They are also key in conducting the final survey, 14 which is when the licensee conducts a radiological survey to 15 demonstrate that, in fact, they have met whatever criteria 16 apply for residual radioactivity.
17 And where appropriate, NRC conducts a confirmatory 18 survey. This is an independent check on the validity and 19 completeness of the licensee survey. It's often done at the 20 larger facilities where there's some residual radioactivity 21 left behind those complex decommissioning actions.
22 And if everything checks out, the license is 23 terminated. Now, NRC recognizes that we're but one 24 interested party in the whole decommissioning process. And 25 as we've heard, again, going around the table this morning ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repaders '
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
_. _ . - _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ . .- _ _ . _ ._._._ _ . _ . . . _ _ .
t
-91 :
1 delisting the site and assuming that all the criteria, other 1 2 remedial goals have been achieved.
3 Do all sites that are licensed for-the use of ,
4 radioactive materials go through this process? The answer -
5 is no. In fact, for many licensed sites, decommissioning is- 4
[
6 a rather routine and simple step in the overall lifetime of j 7 the facility. This piechart depicts what we believe are theJ
~
f 8 principal facilities that are effected by the-outcome of:
9 this rulemaking.
10 For a fair number of_the 24,000 licensees in the i
11 United States, both NRC and Agreement States, they use-s 12 sealed sources. Sealed sources contain the radioactive 13 material in some sort of container and it's only in the-_ case- -
1 14
~
where that container is breached that any contamination ,
15 problem is posed.
16 So for many of those licensees, all.they do is 17 transfer their sealed sourca'to'an authorized user, another-18 licensee or disposal facility and they submit some. 3 19- information to the regulatory agency and'that'arit. _
Theyfre 1 20 done with decommissioning. Pretty simple, straightforward 21 process.
22 other radioactive materials users maylbe using .
23 radioactive materials that decay fairly rapidly. So that 24 'after the operations'have ceased,- in a matter of weeks, days- -
25 even sometimes,-or months, the radioactive materials l decay ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court - Reporters - ,
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington, D. C. 20006
_ _ _____ _ __._. ._._ _- (202) 293-3950 :_ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _
92 !
1 away to sultably low levels that the site-license,can be )
1 2 terminated or facility license can be terminated.
3 That brings us to the real category of facilities 4 that this rulemaking has significant implications for, and-5 those are the smaller proportion of radioactive materials 6 users, both in the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear power l 7 reactors, fuel fabricators, conversion facilities -- this is
~
8 all discussed in the issues paper in a summary-fashion -- as 9 well as other materials licensees, licensees that may be ,
10 involved in the manufacture of sealed sources, for example,_
11 or maybe metal processing licensees where they've generated 12 fairly significant volumes of low activity wastes that they 13 now have to do something with it as part of the 14 decommissioning stop.
15 or radiopharmaceutical manufacturers that_need to
^
16 now decommission their facility after they're done-17 processing and producing their radioactive materials for use:
18 in medical applications.
19 This rulemaking, the outcome of this rulemaking, '
20 the radiological criteria would apply principally to_these 21 facilities. It would apply to all the licensed facilities,.
22 with some exceptions. It would not apply, for_ example, to:
23 disposal of uranium mill tailings. Those are already-24' addressed under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 25 Act as a separate program.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Court Reporters ,
1612 K.: Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
_ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ ~
93 1 In fact, in that case, the governing criteria is 2 not release of a site for unrestricted use, but is, in fact, 3 perpetual care and custody of those disposal facilities.
4 They would not apply to low level waste disposal facilities 5 where the waste is actually disposed. It would not apply to 6 a high level waste repository.
7 Those programs have already been addressed in 8 terms of what is to be done over the long terms what kind of 9 institutional arrangements are appropriate. It would, lo however, apply in some limited situations where, for 11 example, a uranium mill is torn down. The land which would-12 be released for unrestricted use, because it did not contain 13 the uranium mill tailings, that land would be, at least as 14 we're thinking now, the outcome of this rulemaking would ,
15 apply to those situations.
16 To gain some practical insights, NRC has been 17 attempting to build on lessons learned over the last many 18 decades, three decades or so, in decommissioning facilities.
19 When the commission approved the ruleuaking and the plan for 20 the rulemaking that we are engaged ja here today, it 21 emphasized to the staff the need to communicate to 22 participants around the table by providing some practical 23 examples of decommissioning studies.
24 As I mentioned at the outset of my presentation, 25 it wasn't intended to be all inclusive. There are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
94 1 facilities that have gone through decommissioning, like 2 research reactors that are not covered simply because the 3 objective of the case study's work was to provide some 4 examples, not to be fully encompassing of what kind of 5 facilities are out there.
6 And, certainly, people who have practical 7 experience with those kind of facilities, if you bring that 0 up in discussing the issues associated with radiological 9 criteria, we would certainly appreciate that because that's 10 why, in part, you're here.
11 One thing. Some people who have looked at the 12 caso studies, they walk away with the impression, gee, you 13 know, we really have applied a whole selection of different 14 criteria and there's little consistency to those criteria ,
15 that we have applied. I think that's certainly a valid 16 observation, looking at the six case studies which were 17 provided to the participants.
18 The case studies also highlight some practical 15 issues, and this provides a lead-in to Don Cool's 20 presentation which will follow on the rulemaking issues 21 paper.
22 Some of the things that were identified at least 23 to NRC in those case studies are listed on these slides in 24 terms of issues, and we have a variety of administrative and 25 technical issues associated with decommissioning. The first i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 _
95 1 one out there is translating residual contamination into 2 dose or risk.
3 Simply, if there's going to be radioactive 4 material left on-site when the license is terminated and the 5 site is released for unrestricted use, how does one convert 6 that information through modeling or whatever means into 7 what are the dose consequences or the radiological dose-8 consequences; what is the risk that's posed by leaving that 9 material behind. That's one issue there.
10 A second issue is averaging contaminant 11 concentrations. In some cases, it appears appropriate or 12 may appear appropriate to average the contamination over 13 clean soil. In many environmental programs, that verboten ,
14 because the regulatory programs are set up to preclude that 15 kind of averaging. Yet, in looking at the long-term 16 consequences associated with residual radioactive material, 17 there may be some sense to allowing for such dilution. t 18 That's an issue that I believe we'll get into, at least 19 perhaps we'll discuss the criteria.
20 What does one do with former waste disposal sites 21 has come up a number of times going around the table. Are 22 those sites grandfathered? These are situations where NRC 23 or, in some cases, an Agreement State have authorized the 24 disposal of radioactive material on-site. When the license 25 for that site is to be terminated, should the same ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 -
. - - . - - . - . . - - . - . . _ - . - - . - - . - . . - - - ~ _ . . _ -
}
96-1 radiological' criteria that apply in the decommissioning also 2 apply to whatever material is left behind in that waste 3 dispocal facility? i 4 What's the appropriate time period for the ,
5 calculations? Connected to the first. issue-up there,'you 6 have to -- if-you take an approach where you want to assess 7 the consNIuences of the residual radioactive material, for 8 some radirmuclides, particularly the longer-lived 9 radionucliden, uranium, thorium,-radium, in~some cases, i 10 those materials may actually increase in hazard due to the 11 buildup of their decay products.-
12 That, of course, the hazard that one calculates 13 would be deper. dent on how long those calculations are e
14 co'tinued,.100 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years, where do
-15 you draw the lino, recognizing that further.out you go, the 16 greater uncertainty exists in those calculations in terms of 7 how valid are those dose or risk estimates.
18 What is the technical basis for the existing 19 criteria? I mentioned we've been applying a variety of 20 interim guidance, criteria, practices that have evolved over ,
21 the last two decades. Recognizing that there is some 22 inconsistency between thoce, is it appropriate to continue 23 doing that.in the future and what exactly was the basis for-24 some of those criteria.
25 To what extent can institutional controls-be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, . D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
97 1 relied on to preclude exposure to members of the public?
2 How realistic is it to assume that some of those controls 3 will continue in the indefinite future? I mentioned about 4 the long-lived activity or radioactive materials. Some of 5 those materials decay to produce radon. Many of us are ,
6 familiar with radon from our own homes and the need to ;
7 measure and, in some cases, mitigate those radon levels.
8 The same question is posed by leaving the 9 materials behind which may decay to produce radon. Radon, 10 many of you are probably aware, is the principal source of 11 background exposure to most people in the United States, I 12 guess most people in the world.
13 Is radon a special character or should we treat
- 14 that in some other way or should we limit radon to similar 15 constraints as we would apply to other radioactive 16 materials?
17 Certainly, decommissioning may generate a large 18 volume of low activity radioactive waste. What's to be done.
19 with that waste, as well as the higher activity waste? Is 20 the decommissioning action entirely dependent on the 21 availability of low level waste disposal capacity? And if 22 that capacity does not exist, what's to be done in terms of 23 decommissioning?
24 Finally, two administrative issues which are 25 pointed out in the case studies; determination of multiple ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
98 1 licenses. Some of these sites may have multiple licenses 2 that cover different radioactive materials on the same site.
3 Is it appropriate to terminate those licenses in a phased 4 manner so that decommissioning is conducted in several steps 5 as each license was terminated or should a more global 6 approach be taken?
7 Then, finally, what are the advantages or 8 disadvantages of delaying decommissioning, using a phased 9 approach to allow for some decay during some control period?
10 Certainly, for the power reactors, there are multiple 11 options that were laid out in the 1988 decommissioning rule.
12 I think in some cases, like in the Pathfinder case, if you 13 look at that case study, you'll see that there was a savings 14 in terms of occupational dose associated with the delay of 15 the dismantlement of that power reactor.
16 Those are some of the issues. I'm sure cach of 17 you, as you've looked at the case studies, may have learned 18 other things. You may identify different aspects that we 19 did not identify. I'm sure we can all agree that there are 20 many issues which are associated with radiological criteria.
21 We don't want to paralyze ourselves by the number 22 and diversity of those issues, but we want to use these 23 workshops to really focus and hear from you; how do you 24 approach those issues and do you have solutions or concerns l_ 25 about those issues, and to continue that.
I l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K. Street,' N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3S50
99 1 Connie?
2 MS. LEWIS: I was just going to say, quickly, if 3 there's any questions of clarification only, not discussion, 4 but just clarification, we can take a couple of questions 5 before we move on to John's presentation. Any questions?
6 (No response.)
7 KR. COOL: We'll go ahead and look now for just a 8 moment or two at the rulemaking issues paper, which was sent 9 to the participants here around the table ahead of time.
10 There are, once again, copies out on the table for those 11 observers who may not have had a chance to get it ahead of 12 time.
13 As we were, the NRC staff, beginning to look at 14 this process and beginning to say what sorts of things will 15 need to be addressed, what sort of questions do we have, wo 16 attempted to write those down both to organize our own 17 thoughts and then to hopefully serve as a framework of 18 issues and questions which would be useful to us in these 19 couple of day workshops, as to the types of things that 20 needed to be addressed by us as a larger collective group 21 before we would proceed with the rulemaking.
22 So we really wanted to provide an outline of those 23 issues. It's by no means inclusive. We've heard some other 24 things around the table that certainly weren't in the issues 25 paper that are also very valid and we'll hopefully be able ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Waahington, D. C. 20006
-(202): 293 3950
100 1 to address and discuss.
2 But to provide that outline of the issues and 3 questions that we hope to have addressed during the next 4 couple of days. Organizational 1y, we had put together the 5 paper in a way which focused first upon a couple of primary 6 issues, critical items which we believed needed to be 7 addressed.
8 Those things were very large, global, if you will, 9 in construct, and then a number of secondary issues. Not 10 necessailly implying that they are secondary in terms of 11 importance, because some of the issues are incredibly 12 important to the process, but secondary in the sence that 13 they didn't necessarily fit in clearly to one of the two 14 primary issues, or that they were unique in a sense where 15 the discussion i'ould not necessarily obviously follow and we 16 wanted to make sure that we elicited some discussions and 17 thought on some of those particular secondary issues.
18 I'm going to start with the primary issues. The 19 health and safety objectives, and I'll go over those again 20 in a few minutes. Those fundamental, if you will, sort of 21 purist endpoints that we might try to pursue as we develop 22 the alternative regulatory approaches, which is what we're 23 going to be discussing today. That was the first one..
24 The second one dealt with, if you want to put a 25 broad category on it, the practicality sorts of issues; the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Repoders 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 101 ,
1 cost issues of doing a particular work, the measurcmont 2 issues, the technology issues of what can you actually do 3 when you go out on a site and here I am faced with a 4 buildir7 and here's a wall, it has material on it; what are 5 the ways in which I can remove the material, wash it down, I 6 can sandblast it, I can scrape material off it, I can tear 7 it down, those sorts of things.
8 What are available and what does that perhaps mean 9 co the process and the establishment of the standards. So 10 those are the two primary issues.
11 We will probably spend the majority of our time in 12 the next two days examining how the four, what we have 13 termed in the issues papar, objectives might work out under 14 various approaches and under various questions and 15 circumstances. These objectives are, as I said a minute 16 ago, sort of the pure endpoints to what might be a 17 particular regulatory approach that we.might select in 18 producing a standard.
19 The first one we've categorized as risk limits.
20 Use risk rather than dose or radionuclide concentrations to 21 try and be as comprehensive as possible. But the focus of 22 this one is the establishment of a limit, an upper bound, a 23 stop or no trespassing sign or something, a boundary of 24 unacceptable region which you're not going to go beyond.
25 This is the classic approach, if you will, that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
102 ;
I radiation protection has used, a dose limit,-occupctional 2 exposure, public dose. Where you have a violation, you have 3 enforcement actions, all sorts of things going on with a 4 licensee which might exceed that particular value.
5 And then the use of the practicality -
6 considerations, what in the radiation protection community 7 has been traditionally referred to as ALARA, as low as _
8 reasonably achievable, to bring down the actual value to 9 something below the limit in some way, a limitation 10 approach.
11 An alternative approach which Allan Richardson of 12 EPA clearly pointed out is widely uced particularly in the 13 chemical community is a goals approach where you have 14 established -- this is often by legislation for a number of _
15 the chemical constituents -- a goal, that value which, by 16 some process, has been agreed to. Carolyn was most correct.
17 Agreed upon by whom?
18 Sometimes it's agreed upon because legislators set 19 that number in legislation. Is it agreed upon by the 20 regulatory community? Is it agreed upon by the folks who 21 are living at the site, the public community around it? But 22 the selection in some way of a goal, a target that you're 23 striving for, and then looking at the practicality 24 considerations to see how close you can come to that target.
25 Can you, in fact, achieve the target? Do you have to make ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
103 1 exceptions, for whatever reason that might be?
2 So a goal, a target sort of approach, which is, if 3 you will, the sort of bottom end of the spectrum if I were 4 to draw a chart which related it somehow to a dose or risk.
5 Another approach, another type of objective which 6 has also been used at various times is a bcct effort 7 approach. Everybody has their own particular set of terms; 8 best available technology, best effort. We've tried to 9 capture those sorts of things. That's a possible endpoint 10 for establishing a standard, also.
11 Some particular technology or ccmbination of 12 technologies or actions that would be taken which, in the 13 purist model, if you will, if you've taken those steps, 14 you've said, okay, I have taken Step A, B and C, we get 15 this, this and this, here's what's left, it might be 16 accepted as the solution.
17 The question that's immediately raised, of course, 18 is how does that perhaps relate to dose or risk; how does 19 that relate to what some people's concept might be, a 20 limitation or a goal. But, nevertheless, it's a way in 21 which certain kinds of radionuclides, certain kinds of 22 chemicals have been regulated particularly by the EPA and 23 some of their regulations, the establishment of-a particular 24 kind of control technology for airborne effluents, for 25 example. That's an example of that kind of endpoint f
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
104 1 objective to the regulatory approach.
2 The fourth one that we put up here was a return to 3 background. Here, I think we need to make a distinction 4 between what a number of folks sometimes refer to as 5 Greenfield, particularly the nuolear community, which is to 6 take the whole site and return it and remove all of the 7 kulldings, remove anything that may have been present there, 8 and what may be a slightly more defined subset, which is ,
9 returning to a radiological background, which could 10 conceivably mean that sono of the buildings and materials 11 would remain on the site, but that the radioLctive material
- . had been used.
13 This particular objective would say -- and, once' 14 again, it's purint model -- then you're going to take the p
15 site back to those radiological conditions that existed 16 prior to the time that you conducted activities at the 17 sites. There are a number of questions that you might ask.
18 Do you mean the exact same radionuclides that were 19 present at the site, just the naturally-occurring material 20 in the area, or do you mean doses which are equivalent to 21 that or risks which are equ.' valent to that. But, 22 nevertheless, that's an objective; returning it back to the 23 preexisting type of environment.
24 We're going to take each of these objectives 25 hopefully over the next couple of days and look at them from ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I i
j 105 j 1 the standpoint of building a regulatory approach for j 2 developing the standard.
3 A regulatory approach might-simply be one of these 4 objectives, an approach whereby you~ establish -- and you l 5 look at practicality. But a regulatory approach might also' 6 be some combination of these. For example, perhaps where-7 you establish some sort of-effort level which is going-to be 8 acceptable so long as you're below a limit for example, or 9 where you set a limit and you work below that towards a 10 particular goal and combine those two. - -
11 So there are a number of possible approaches, t
12 which may be combinations, subsets or-otherwise of these ,.
13 particular objectives. And in developing the outline-of the 14 discussions for the day, the agenda, we wanted'to try and 15 look at those possible regulatory objectives from various 16 viewpoints.
17 The analogy that'I like to think of what we're 18 going to be doing is we're going to be looking into a. box. i 19 I don't know what's inside the box, but I've got some 20 windows here and there and I can look at the possible 21 objectives and regulatory approaches from the window of-
'2 protection of health and safety. And I can'look at these 23 regulatory approaches from the window of waste management' 24 implications.
25 And I can.look at these possible approaches from ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 LWashington, D. C. 20006 (202): 293-3950'
106 1 the window of technology or the window of costs of these 2 various things and try to get a viewpoint, a feeling of 3 what's inside this box and what I ought to create out of 4 this box, which would be the standard, hopefully, from these 5 various windows and perspectives. That is what our hope is 6 to do here over the next couple of days.
7 In addition to the primary issues, there are a 8 number of secondary issues which we laid out because we felt 9 they needed to be particularly discussed and focused upon, 10 that they warranted some measure of consideration.
11 You will notice an amazing similarity here, not 12 surprising, between the secondary issues, some of the 13 secondary issues that we've laid out and some of the issues 14 that came directly out of the case studies.
15 One of the issues that we're particularly going to 16 get into early this afternoon, nearly one of the cross-17 cutting issues, the individuals and populations that we're 18 looking at protecting. Is it a single individual? Is it a 19 collective group of individuals? Do they live on the site, 20 do they live off the site?
21 What are their characteristics? Are they using 22 the land for food and agriculture? Are they drinking the 23 water from the site? Who are these people? What are their 24 characteristics?
25 Recycle and reuse. That's a dangerous sort of ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
107 1 thing, but, nevertheless, I believe we all have to recognize 2 that if you release a site for unrestricted use, that means 3 that whatever you leave there, someone can come in and do 4 whatever they want to with it.
5 They may decide to tear down the building and 6 erect it someplace else. In the days of prefabrication, 7 that's certainly possible nowadays. They may tear it down, 8 melt it down and go use it for some other purpose. They may 9 tear it down and decide I don't want to use this building, I 10 want to use something else, and send it away to be disposed 11 of in some way.
12 So there is a cross-connect between releasing a 13 site and where the material might go, because you cannot 14 necessarily make the assumption that that material will stay 15 there forever.
16 The timeframes to be considered. Now? The 17 future? We talked about, as we went around tho table this la morning, wanting to have a standard that would stand the 19 test of time. Some of the radionuclides, particularly in 20 the fuel cycle, have halflives which are into thousands, 21 hundreds of thousands, millions of years. They're going to 22 be around for a very long time.
23 What sort of timeframe do we want to look at for 24 calculating it? If you're looking at some particular 25 pathway, material may not move into that pathway for a long-ANN RILEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
.l 108 .;
I 1 period of time. Do we want to look at the maximum wherever 2 you might want to calculate it and, if so, how are you going 3 to calculate it? a 4 So there's a timeframe question to be considered 5 in putting together the criteria. -
6 Pathway-specific criteria. In establishing )
1 7 regulations, you could take a generic all-encompassing ;
8 approach, saying this is your limit, your goal,-and-it's-9 going to apply to all the material to say that's the end. ,
10 Alternatively, you could look at some particular pathway.
11 There are a number of EPA standards-which, for 12 example, focus on particular pathways;.the-groundwater 13 pathway or drinking water pathway or airborne release-14 pathway or an agricultural pathway, an ingestion pathway. ,,
15 The question then comes do you want to focus on 16 those particular pathways and provide some'particular goal 17 or limit or approach to those or do we want to all wrap,them 18 in together into a comprehensive approach. That's-why that 19 one is up there.
20 The issue of radon, which Mike Weber has already 2.1 elaborated on very well, which has a whole unique set of 22 modeling circumstances and the fact that it's so ubiquitous 23 in the environment. It's part of that preexisting' condition
-24 which,. depending on whether I'm in the desert southwest or 25 whether I'm in the area of Reading, Pennsylvania versus some ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters-1612 - K.-- Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202F 293-3950
! 109 i
j 1 other areas, has a tremendous degree of variability and
! 2 then, likewise, a tremendous degree of variability in the 3 risks which are present inherently in the particular area, 4 irrerpective of the material which may have been licensed at 5 the site.
6 And the last one, previously buried materials, 7 natorials which may be buried there as a result of 8 activities and operations, approved waste disposal under 9 some of the provisions that existed back in the course of 10 hintory, a decade or two ago, what to do with those 11 materials, wnich gets us back to the fundamental question, 12 which Mike, again, elaborated on, the release for 13 unrestricted use, which you've brought up around this table 14 as being our goal and the current definition of 15 decommissioning in the NRC standards.
16 By way of providing just a little bit of 17 background, this effort does have a lot of things which 18 support a number of activities beyond just the discussion 19 today. There is a lot of what you might refer to as 20 technical underpinnings, which was the word used in the 21 issues paper, which would support the decisions that we're 22 to use, irrespective of the kind of approach that we might 23 discuss here, the first one being modeling.
24 ona of the things that's going to have to be-25 looked at and which often cecomes an issue is how to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 '
(202) 293-3950 .
110 1 translate material on the ground or material which is on the 2 side of the building to a done or risk or otherwise and all 3 of the assumptions which go into that.
4 We have produced atd have published -- we had 5 hoped there would be cop es here, but I think the U.S. mail 6 system failed us -- some copies of a document called ifUREG 7 CR-5512, which is a modeling technology associated with 8 trying to translate matorial on the ground or on buildings 9 into a dose. That's one possible model.
10 There are other models which are out there. DOE's 11 RESRAD code and some others which are modeling sorts of 12 information which are availeblo. Efforts on site ,
13 characterization, one of the steps in the process that Mike 14 Weber talked about. And, once again, there is some 15 information which is already available, has been made 16 available to some licensees that exists right now in the 17 form of a branch technical position within the commission, 18 which we hope will be published for general public comment 19 within another month or two, which is a step in the process.
20 What kind of information do you need about a site 21 before you even begin to consider how you're going to 22 decommission it. Following on, logically, from that is the 23 survey procedures. What kinds of things do you_need to do 24 to verify that whatever standard you may come up with, 25 whatever goal that you have, how can you determine whether ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
111 1 or not you've met it?
2 There is a document, once again, a NUREG document 3 which has been published, draft, for comment. It's been out 4 about six months or so. The number on it is NUREG CR-5849.
5 I hope I have that number correctly. Which has been 6 circulated around and which people are looking at for 7 interim use and ideas and comments, and those comments are 8 solicited.
9 Finally, as Chip Cameron talked about way back at 10 the beginning of these discussions, there's an effort that's 1 11 going to be ongoing related to the generic environmental 12 impact statement, a piece of documentation which we must 13 produce associated with this rulemaking. There will be a 14 whole separate scoping process which will be conducted in .
15 June and July of this year, if we stay or. the schedule which 16 is presently envisioned.
17 We're going to take all of the input from these 18 meetings, fold that into our scoping process, but there will 19 be a' separate public comment period associated with that in 20 its own separate puolic meeting.
21 One last thing which is not up on this slide, but 22 which was engendered by a question which Dr. Sinclair asked-23 a little bit, which was how does this fit in with other 24 regulatory activities; in particular, the 1988 25 decommissioning rule. Michael already touched on that, that ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
> (202) 293-3950
112 1 rule dealing with procedures and some of those sorts of 2 things and which specifically cut out and did not include 3 discussion of the radiological criteria.
4 There are some other things going (- vithin the 5 Commission, some things that have already been published in 6 draft stages, rulemaking dealing with the timeliness of 7 decommissionireg timing reviews, a rulemaking dealing with 8 some more specifics with regard to the kinds of 9 documentation that would be necessary.
10 So that's a little bit of the background from 11 which we can begin-our discussions.
12 MS. LEWIS: Thanks, Don. Any-quick clarification 13 questions?
14 (No response.]
15 MS. LEWIS: Okay. I believe we're going to open 16 this up for discussion, comments from the floor. Before'we 17 do that, just quickly, we have a sign-up sheet for 18 observers. It's up here. Before we break for lunch or when 19 we breaA fv- Tunch, if any of you who are here as observers 20 have not signed up, we would ask that you get your names on 21 that sheet. Thanks. Mike?
22 MR. LESNICK: This is not Donohue.
I want to take 23 an opportr-11ty.this morning and just kind of a tuning in, 24 background from the NRC, background-from EPA, background 25 from Keystone, and then finalizing of that. From this point ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
a 116 1 internationally. The participants around the table were 2 provided-ahead of-time and there are copies on the table of-3 a brief outline of some of the international activitiest 4 once again, not necessarily included comprehensive.
5 There are things going on both in international 6 organizations, such as the International Atomir L.ergy 7 \gency, and some things which individual other countries, 8 England, France, Germany and others are'doing, and some of 9 that background information is available and we can 10 certainly try to take that into account.
11 MR. LESNICK: Thank you. As we indicated, there 12 will be times throughout for observers to make comments, 13 observations and ark questions and we'll be doing that 14 throughout the next two dayu,-folks.
5 We're going to break now, break for lunch. Let me i6 say a few things about timing and availability and all that.
17 We're a couple of minutes behind schedule and we really --
18 we've got an awful lot to talk about.
19 Fo what we'd like to do is break and we will start-20 up at 1:00 in this room, even if it's Barbara and I talking 21 to each other and the poor gentleman recording. But we-will.
22 start at 1:00. I am hopeful that the people around the 23 table are anxious to get back and kind of get at it.
24 I'm equally hopeful that the observers are anxious 25 to come back and hear what you have to say so that they can l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
k-113 1 forward, it's pretty much interactive-discussion around 2 here.-
3 But-I want to provide an opportunity before we- ;
4 break for_ lunch for folks that_are observing. Any
~
5 clarifying questions, quick points you'd like to make? And 6 I underline the word quick, before we break'for lunch. Name 7 and organization, if you wouldn't mind. I really feel like 8 Donohue.
9 MR. OGLE:- My name is Russ ogle. I'm with ,
10 Donohue. I'm a Project Manager for one of_the STMP sites 11 and I'd like to offer the issue of mixed waste as an-issue "
12 which will force some level of harmonization and integration 13 between EPA and NRC. I emphasize that we are a site that we 14 must remediate in the short term. .
15 So this is not an academic issue. -I think I'm 16 raising a very practical one.:
17 MR.-LESNICK: Each of these does not require-18 necessarily a response here,'unless you feel compelled.
19 MR. TRUBATCH: I'm Sheldon Trubatch from Winston &
20 Strawn. I was surprised that I haven't heard anything about 21 the uranium mill tailings. regulations since that rulemaking ~
L 22 rai. sed many:of the same_ kinds.of. issues that we're going to 23' talk about here in this workshop, which have:a-large-volume 24 of materials which had a potential-for this space and time 25' enclosures.
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 - K. Street, _ N.W., Suite 300 Washington,' D.- C. 20006 lOnm pos.sorn
114 1 So I would'suggest that we'look back-to that 2 experience to see what we can learn in terms of this 3 process.
4 MR. LESNICK: Chip or Mike, you kind of mentioned' 5 that already, didn't you? .
6 MR. CAMERON: Yes. I think Mike mentioned the 7 fact that this particular rulemaking was not going to apply 8 to the disposal of mill tailings since the regulations were 9 already set for that. But I think that Mr. Trubatch has an 10 instructive point in that we will look at, in preparing.this.
11 rule, not only the workshop comments, written comments, but 12 anything that might be applicable, any lessons learned from 13 previous rulemakings.
14 MR. LESNICK: Any others?
15 MS. WHITE: I have a couple things written down.
16 They aren't long. I'm Mary Gerry White. I'm with the 17 American Nuclear Society stationed at Argonne National 18 Laboratories, Senior Quality Engineer in Environmental ~
19 Activities-and Waste Management.
20 Some of the things we need to consider we have not .
21 -- I have not heard this morning, but will probably come 22 into some of the discussion work. Technology comparability.
23 that would be used for-DME, where would you have your 24 technology transfer? You need to-consider the 25 identification of a certi*ication and validation program for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
115-1 sampling. Analysis is pretty well covered, but your 2 sampling is not and this is something that's had lots of 3 experience throughout the U.S. in various DME projects and 4 it has been established. Some good best-methods are there.
5 You'probably will need to require that some common 6 method be used or references be made to this. I'd like to 7 ask if you considered who would be responsible for training 8 in connection with the standards. Is that considered as 9 part of your criteria and standards as to where that 10 responsibility would lie and what kind of certification 11 programs for people participating so that we would end up 12 with some comparability of results and methods, so that you 13 will have for sure some verification of cleanup or whatever 14 standard and criteria you set up.
15 The last item I'd like to mention is the long-16 term monitoring programs, which may have to be mentioned 17 somehow in the standards for DME.
18 MR. LESNICK: Any other questions or comments?
19 QUES 2 ION FROM THE FLOOR: Should there be any.
20 consideration of cross-national comparisons, how other 21 developed countries are handling these problems? Should 22 that be part of the discussion?
23 MR. COOL: I'll try-to-address that one very 24 briefly. I did not try to cover in my discussion this 25 morning some of the things which are going on ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)-293-3950
117 1 get their two cents in throughout.the two days, as well.
2 So, please, get back here by one. ' Barbara has got 3 some suggestions and thoughts about' lunch availability.--I 4 don't see anyone here from the hotel. We were hoping that 5 we could do a lunch here and people would pay for their own 6 lunch here, but the problem was it was so bloody expensive 7 for the hotel. So we do have some ideas for you that are 8 reasonably quick and close by.
9 We're not total advocates of fast food, but kind-10 of quick food maybe. We appreciate people staying with us 11 in this morning's session. We think it's important to kind-12 of get this roadmap a little bit here of where the NRC is 13 coming from, where EPA is, the groundrules and the 14 background, and so now we can really get on with it for the ,
15 next day-and-a-half. And we've got a long day today, folks.-
16 MS. STINSoN: Mike hasn't heard the list of fast 17 food and it's going to appear that we are total advocates of 18 fast food. What we have is fast food row off to the right 19 of Michigan Avenue as you walk out the front door; Pizza 20 Hut, Arby's, Subway, those are all right across the street.
21 I think there's a small Vietnamese restaurant.
22 And as you go on down, there's a Jacob's Sandwich 23 Rastaurant, a small Mexican restaurant, very small, very 24 slow, I understand, Taco Belle, McDonalds, and BK, Burger 25 King.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l c
118 1 So if you can take -- there.really'isn't a 2 restaurant in -- I-think there's a bar downstairs, but I'm 3 not sure.
4 MR. LESNICK: No bars.
5 MS. STINSON: Yes, no bars. We're going to give 6 you 15 minutes for lunch. I hope that's enough time. If 7 you need to bring something back into the room, if.you get 8 in a line or something, that's fine. You're welcome to do:
9 that.
10 We're going to put the observers' registration 11 list out on the table. Please do sign up, if you have not 12 already, with your full address.- We'll see you at 1:00, 13 [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the workshop was 14 recessed for lunch, to reconvene this same day at 1:00 p.m.]
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
119' a 1 AFTERNOON S E'S:S I O N 2 MR. LESNICK: Well, thank you very much everyone 3 for' coming back so quickly. We apologize ~for having to-4 force you to take a very fast lunch. _You can then take a.
5 leisurely-dinner this evening. Those of you who came in 6 early, we noted it, and you got a blue star.. If you are an 7 observer, you get a little extra time to talk. If you are 8 on tLe table, you get a little extra time. Just kidding.
9 [ Laughter.)
10 MR. LESNICK: Let's take care of a few 11 housekeeping matters, and a couple of process observations, 12 and then really get at this.
13 In terms of housekeeping and logistics, there are 14 at least one or two videotapes that folks brought with them.
15 I know -- I think there is a videotape of one of the hac --
16 one of the decommissionings, is that right, Mike?
17 MR. WEBER: -Yes.
18 MR. LESNICK: Which one is it?.
19 MR. WEBER: ' Pathfinder.
20 MR. LESNICK: Pathfinder. Susan or David, did you 21 bring some videos you wanted to -- okay. Chris, I am not 22 sure if you brought a video. But, we have got video 23 equipment available. And what we are going to do is talk to 24 the hotel and see if we can make the machine and television 25 available starting at 8:00 p.m. this evening, and, at least, f
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 ' K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
20-1 with regarding the Pathfinder site, Wes is-here from that:
2 region, and he could walk people through the videotape, and 3 what happened there, and why, and all of that, and you can-4 ask all of the questions you want.
5 For anyone else who.has got a video, we would 6 appreciate knowing about it so that we could announce it, so 7 people can know what they can come to to see.
8 Does anyone have anything now they would like to 9 announce that they brought in terms of videotape 10 availability? Bird Avenue, do you have it?
11 MS. TREPAL: We didn't bring it.
12 MR. LESNICK: Do you have it here? Could we make 13 it available, Chris?
14 MS. TREPAL: If you want to show it, sure. ,
15 MR. LESNICK: All right. So, we also have a 16 videotape about the Bird Avenue site as well. So, 8:00 p.m.
17 in this room. Bring your own popcorn,. bring your own soda, 18 and you will learn a little bit-more about those areas.
19 Okay?
20 One very brief process observation, if you don't 21 mind. In talking to EPA and NRC staff getting ready for 22 this meeting, and -- pardon me? We are not showing the 23 video? Okay. You are having trouble seeing with the light?
24 It's a toss up?
25 Anyway, in talking to the two agency staff, you ANN' RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-121 1 know, what their' needs= are, their' intent, the kind- of-2 -information they want to gather, and in listening to-people-3 -around the table, it:is very clear, and'I-hope, at least 4 those of you around the table will acknowledge this -- that 5- each of you brings very different kinds of expertise.- And.
~
6 it-seems to us, at least, that each of you are going to:be:
7 equally valuable-to the agencies as they try and struggle-8 with these. kind _of rulemaking. We have'got-expertise 9 ranging from M.D.s, we have got health' physicists, we have 10 got business people here, we have got folks _that are 11 involved on a contractual--basis-doing-decommissionings, we 12 have got people that work with the public on an everyday-13 basis, people that work near sites. Each of those expertise 14 is going to be very very important to understand-the ,
15 viability, the pros and cons, and_different ways of-getting 16 at this rule. So, I want to lay that on the table. =Each-of'
, 17 them is different, but each-of them is going tolbe veryl 18 important and very very useful. . So, I urge-you all to draw 19 upon your expertise and to respect-the kind'of expertisefwen 20 do have around here.
21 Okayi All right. If.you all will look at your-22 agenda, please. What is on the agenda is the 12:45 slot.
23 We are going to have a roundtable discussion here. We.may.-
24 submit this for the world's longest agenda item,Lbut we 25 won't. Let me see if I can capture the gist of this, all ANN 'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
122-1 right, and what we want to do here. .You recall' Don talked-2 about the four'possible ways -- the regulatoryJframeworks, 3 potential regulatory-frameworks of.how1to get,for how to do. -
4 this rule. They are_ listed as objectives,'all;right-, in 5 that -- in the issues paper. We are_ going'toftalk.about-6 them as regulatory frameworks from this_ point forward. And' 7 before we start getting into the cross-cutting issues,Jit=
8 would seem to be valuable to. spend'a little bit of time, as_
~
9 a group, talking about what are the relative ~ advantages-and; '
10 disadvantages of developing generic standards through this 11 rulemaking, especially from the perspective of what's been 12 going on to date, on a case-by-case basis.
13 So, what we would like to do is -- because-we have 14 talked to some of you on the' phone about this. _Some:of.yous 15 feel like it's a great idea, some of you feel it may'not,be 16 a great idea, or it may be a: great idea, but. This may be a 17 good time to kind of get that on the table now. . So, let's 18 open it up for discussion, and go for about 45 minutes or-19 so. And let me ask, if you would like to make aEcomment'--
20 apparently I have lost my nase tab -- would you please,.
21 around the table, just putting your-name tag on the corner, 22 so we can keep-track of who-would like to speak.
23 So, let me throw that out, please,-your reactions 24 to the relative advantages and disadvantages of pursuing
, . 25 this kind of generic rulemaking. The floor is open around
'l ANN- RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers-1612 K. Street, _ N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C.- 20006 <
(202) 293-3950
123 1 the table. Mary? Please speak into the mike. We are going 2 to have to do this microphone passing now.
3 MS. SINCLAIR: I think, in most cases,-you have 4 such a range of_ radioactive waste -- some with a very short 5 life, or an extremely long-lived waste, that'it seems to me 6 that would present a great difficulty in arriving at a 7 generic standard that you could say it would be durable over.
8 a long period of time, which is one of the requests that 9 people here have said they would like to be able to depend 10 on for generations. And so I see that as a problem.
11 MR. LESNICK: In your mind does it make it 12 impossible or is it just a problem?
13 MS. SINCLAIR: I think that there are experts that 14 will address this here. I would like to hear it. .
15 MR. LESNICK: Okay. Are there reactions, pros and 16 cons, to the generic rulemaking?
17 MR. CEMBER: A question on that. How long, when 18 one talks about long times, what are we talking about, tens 19 of years, hundreds, thousands, millions?
20 MS. SINCLAIR: Well, I mean, that radioactive 21 waste ranges in toxicity from, you know, a very short half-22 life.
23 MR. CEMBER: No. Not in toxicity, a half-lifn.
24 Yes.
25 MS. SINCLAIR: Well, in half-life.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 com som. mom
e 1241
~1- THE REPORTER: Would-you-please use.the.
2 micrcphono.-
~
3 MR. LESNICK: .Let's make-this available down:at.
4 that'end, so we can spread these'around. Chris, if you
~
5 could hang-on just a minute.
6 MS. SINCLAIR: I was just saying that
~ ~
7 radioactivity ranges in its hazardous-half-life-from a'very 8 short period'of time to a very long period-of time.- And how 9 you can arrive at a generic standard, given thosa 10 disparities, I would like to hear.
11 MR. LESNICK:. Frank?
12 MR. RESCEK: The standard -- Ilthink the beauty of-13 a risk-base standard is that you would have~a value of an 14 exposure limit, and an exposure goal.say that you would 15 protect the community to. The implementation of:that 16 standard then would be-possibly different -- most.likely-
- 17. different for different types of sites that have different 18 types of radionuclides. So, I think the flexibil-ity needs 19 to be in the implementation ~of a standard; but the basic- 1 20 standard should~be risk-based. Then it doesn't really 21 matter what nuclides-you are talking about, as long'as no-22 one-receives exposure that exceeds those standards.-
23 MR. LESNICK: Okay.
24 Bob?
25 MR. OWEN: I just wanted to say that this was'part ANN RILEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodersr 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D. C. 20006
__(202) 293-3950 . .
f 125 -
1 'of Generic Rule -- that'that:certainly would serve as a -
2 baseline. -I_ don't think you will~be-able to' address:every 3 situation conclusively. I justLwanted to clarify that 4 point. ;
~
5 .MR.:LESNICK: That's useful.
6 -Herman? I will_come over to you,rHerman.
7 MR. ROYAL: I am reminded about a recent 8 experience that I had with my teenage son _who"_just started '
9 to drive. And when he started to_ drive, he; asked me:.about 10 his curfew.- And I said'well, why don't we-make-a decision 11 on a case-by-case basis.- It-depends-on whe e you'areigoing ,
12 and what you are doing, and then, depending on that, will' 13 decide what time you should be home.-- And the problem with' .
14 that approach is that we spend all.of our time, every= time- ,
15 that he went out, discussing when the appropriate time wa~s-16 for him to go out. So, I am in-favor of_a standard,-because
- 17 I think that a case-by-case approach is going to be very .
18 ineffic'ent'and' i impractical.
19 MR. LESNICK: Okay. Herman?
20 MR. CEMBER: If it's risk-based, and~if'we-setia-21 standard so that the risk is acceptable.now, if the stuff is:
22 relatively short-lived and does decay,-then certainly the-23- risk will be.even less in the future. If it is long-lived, 24 or even if it is not-radioactive and~has an infinitely long 25 half-life, that risk level'will remain. But, if it is an-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters ,
1612 K. . Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)- 293-3950
-126 1 acceptable risk now, it should be. acceptable in the future 2 too. So, we should work on what's acceptable now, and ,
3 whether it is long-lived or short-lived, is it relevant?
4 Except that, if it is short-lived, the-risk will decrease 5 with increasing time.
6 MR. LESNICK: Susan?
7 If you are finished, please don't forget to put' 8 your cards down, or else I will forget you in the queue 9 here.
10 MS. HIATT: I guess my response to that would be 11 our knowledge and understanding of what is an acceptable 12 risk, dealing with radioactive material and radiation has 13 been changing over time. What was considered to be an s
14 acceptable level five. years ago, 10 years ago, we just had 15 part 20 revised that decreased -- the public dose went from-16 500 millirems a year to 100 millirems per year. So, I-17 think, as our knowledge of the hazards of radiation 18 increases, we may find that what we think is an acceptable 19 risk today may not be an acceptable risk tomorrow. And I 20 think that that is one of the root causes of the problem 21 that we are having here in trying to find an appropriata 22 standard.
23 MR. LESNICK: Okay. Bob?
24 MR. THOMAS: Yes. That's what makes me very 1
25 nervous. Because I don't know -- let me say this, whether ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
f127_
l1 it is true.or not -- I don't think thatzwe have come up:with 2- any great: knowledge on-the effectscof radiation on' people-at 3 lower doses for a long,'long time. rWhat'we have:come'up 4 with are different ways of extrapolatingLfrom'what we do.
5 have down_to zero. And people like to use the z'ero'~, zero 6 concept with linear because, if you take_thetslope, now you- _
7 have got a risk factor. But, I think, as far as anymore ,
8 information on the effects -- the measurable effects on-9 people at low levels of radiation, I don't think-we-are much 10 different than we have been for many years.
11 MR. LESNICK: Henry?
12 MR. ROYAL: I would also like to address the issue 13 of our uncertainty, in terms of our' scientific knowledge ,
14 about radiation effects. We-know more about radiation than 15 we know about any other toxic substance. It-is'true that we 16 don't know everything about radiation, but we know much_more-17 about radiation than we know about many other toxins.; The 18 fact that-the limits are changing may represent:the fact 19 that society is getting more risk adverse, rather than as'a 20 change in the scientific estimate of what the risks-really 21 are.
.22 The other issue that I would like to point-out 23 -that has to do with uncertainty, is.I don't'think that the 24 uncertainty on radiation effects has much to do with what we- ,
25 are deciding here. And the reason that I say that is, if-ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court Reporters 1612 .K.- Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950-
128--
1 you look at:a pie chart of where the American population,or; 2 any-population around the'world-is'being exposed:to-from 3 radiation, it is=a fraction of a percent that comes>from'the 4 activities that we are talking about today.- If the goal'is 5 to protect the public against the; health' effects of 6 radiation, we would not think that we1would be able to 7 impact that health effect simply because.the decommissioning 8 process is going to represent such a small fraction of the 9 entire radiation exposure that the American population is.
10 exposed to.
11 MR. LESNICK: Allen, you are one of the characters 12 that has to wrestle-with this in the Agency.
13 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I think it was Herman'who 14 made the point that, if -- made the distinction between long .
15 and short-lived radio isotopes, and pointed out~that,~if-you-16 have limited the risk to an acceptable level for a short --
17 for a long-lived material, then you are doing even better 18 for short-lived material. And that.is absolutely-true. The 19 question that I would ask the group is should we distinguish 20 between long-lived and short-lived materials at the sase 21 risk 3evel, because total number of people that will .be 22 impacted will be quite different at that risk level.
23 MR. LESNICK: David? You-don't'have'your card up 24 yet.
25 MR. MINNAR: Well, I agree with some of the ANN RlLEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. ' Street,: N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) c 293-3950
129 1 uncertainty expressed here about considering long-term 2 effects. But,_one point I want to raise,-and I guess it is 3 just an echoing of a comment I heard, I think, by Frank, 4 supporting the risk based approach as a regulatory approach,_
5 as opposed to any of the other three. I would add'that I 6 support the ICRP concept of introducing a constraint limit, 7_ perhaps to be codified, in addition to a dose limit. And 8 the beauty of that concept, I believe, coupled with ALARA, 9 as currently used by the NRC, is that the constraint-limit.I 10 think is more important in areas where'we are considering 11 decommissioning. Decommissioning implies no longer in need 12 of further controls. As such, it seems a constraint is 13 appropriate to consider that there may be. multiple sources 14 of exposure to persons or individuals over the-long-term, ,,
~
15 for which any particular individual ~ facility or site that 16 may have had to meet some-standard for decommissioning 17 should appropriately be held to a lower limit than just that 18 appropriate for considering dose and health effects. So, I 19 would just like to add that. It is really, I guess, a 20 combination of a regulatory approach one, and regulatory 21 approach two, as espoused in the NRC's issues paper that I 22 am supporting, following more or less the ideology of the 23 ICRP.
24 MR. LESNICK: Yes. Let's remember, we are here 25 kind of at the very front-end of the discussion. So, it is ANN- RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
130 l' kind of-like we are starting off with binoculars, and later 2 on we are going to the microscopes. Right now, I want'to 3 hear about the general reactions about the need, 4 desirability, concerns about, advantagen of generic 5 criteria, okay?
6 Let me get a few that haven't had their cards up 7 yet, all right, Herman and Mary, and then we will come back..
8 Chris, and then Mark.
9 MS. TREPAL: I guess I just wanted to respond to a 10 couple of things. First of all, I think we do know an awful 11 lot about exposure to ionizing radiation. I think there is 12 an awful lot we don't know, and there is a tremendous debate 13 among credible scientists on both sides. I mean, just for 14 example, you know, the medical recommendations, that people 15 limit themselves even to x-rays. I think it's -- people's 16 conceptions have changed in the past 10 to 15 years.
17 And I think, as we learn more, we are going to go ahead and 18 encourage people to reduce their exposures. And the other 19 thing I was really concerned about, and this is always.
20 brought up at our meetings for our sites -- people detest 21 the idea of averaging, especially the people who live right-22 at the fence, and they feel, you know,-that they are there 23 when the wind is blowing, and the guy two. levels upwind of 24 the plant does not have the same chance of being exposed.
25 And even though, population wise, he is going to get I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. H Court Reporters ;
1612 K. Street, N.W., " s 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
131-1 averaged into.that exposure. And I think that is something-2 we have really got to realize -- that folks, you know, right 3 there onsite, at the decommissioning facilities _are -- they-4 have a different interest, they have a different exposure.
5 Math-wise, we are going to go ahead and average them. But, 6 that is not going to target an individual's chance,'when he 7 lives right at the fence.
8 MR. LESNICK: Okay. Mark?
9 MR. RICHARDSON: I just wanted to address Allen's 10 question about can a generic standard be applied to 11 different types of radioactive isotopes with varying half-12 lives. I think you can use a generic standard, based on 13 international standards, and use that as your goal, but use 14 the flexibility in the rulemaking to be able to. address 15 situations where, for example, you have sealed scurces, 16 where there is not going to be any residual activity left, 17 and that is going to pretty much take' care of itself. Or, 18 you may have some minor residual contamination of very 19 short-lived isotopes. And, again, we work under the same 20 standard, as you are for any other type of radioactive 21 materials. But, it will obviously be much easier to comply 22 with the standard, and it will be much easier then to apply 23 flexibility to the rules, and use ALARA-type considerations 24 to lower the levels to even levels that are below what the 25 standard has been established at.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
132-1 MR. LESNICK: Mary?
2 MS. SINCLAIR: I ;hink --
3 MR. LESNICK: Go up to the mike, Mary, because 4 they will get frustrated.
5 MS. SINCLAIR: I think Mr. Royal, or Dr. Royal 6 said something about the fact that standards.for the health 7 effects from radiation on human beings hasn't changed very 8 much. But, it seems to me that there are new studies coming 9 out quite often, or regularly, and one.recent one by Dr.
10 Alice Stewart, which I think is published in the American 11 Journal of Industrial Hygiene, which says that the low dose 12 radiation over a long period of time is much more -- has 13 much great er effect on human health than we thought. Do you 14 disecunt studies like that? .,
15 MR. LESNICK: Herman?
16 MR. ROYAL: I think it is extremely misleading to 17 say that the scientific community is divided about what'the 18 health effects of-radiation are. There are about a handful 19 of people who express an extreme opinion about what the 20- health effects of radiation are. But, the great bulk of 21 scientists who have studied this problem are in agreement 22 about what the risks are.
23 MR. LESNICK: Let's try and stay with what are --
24 we need some feedback to the NRC and EPA about kind of the 25 primary question here. We really need to hear it. Herman, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
133 1- and then Mike Weber.
2 MR. CEMBER: I wanted to comment on what. Susan 3 'Hiatt said about the standards changing. I think Dr. Royal- .
4 mentioned this too. The standaros are changing I believe 5 not because we know more about the effects of low-level 6 radiation. As far as I know, we havu yet to demonstrate any 7 effects of the doses we are talking about, because, if we 8 would, the people in Keystone get about three times the 9 radiation dose than I get in Chicago. And I haven't seen 10 anything happening among them yet.
11 But, we do have,.as a background -- that must be -
12 -
13 MR. LESNICK: I thought it was.
14 MR. CEMBER: Seriously, we have areas in the world..
15 where the background ranges by -- well, we have large 16 population groups on.the order of by a factor of certainly 17 four, three to four. And we have -- with lots of people 18 living there, and we don't observe any offects among them.
19 And so, and the doses that we're talking about are really 20 within the range of variability of background. And to 21 support that, the Peer-Five Report says that they don't.--
22 they say you should not extrapolate doses below 10. rads.
23 Doesn't is say that? Then they go ahead and do it. But, 24 they say that it's not applicable. Below 10 rads is really 25 highly-speculative. And then they have what, about eight or ANN RILEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
134 1 10 models, and they choose one. But, they do say explicitly 2 that all of this applies to doses of 10 rads or above.
3 MR. RICHARDSON: I would prefer not to join the 4 argument on what radiation risks are. There are other fora 5 in which that is going to be worked out, including the 6 National Academy of Sciences studies, and both NRC's and-7 . EPA's scientific resources on that. The issue that I think 8 we need to deal with here is, given a particular level of 9 assumption of what the radiation risk is, or a particular 10 set of assumptions about what the radiation risk is, what is 11 the best way to go about regulating the clean-up of sites?
12 Because we could spend all day arguing about that.
13 And the -- so the -- to refocus the_ issue, I think 14 the question is are the risks that are associated with sites ,
15 such that, given the standard assumptions, that.they can be 16 regulated on a generic basis, or-have to be regulated on a 17 site-specific basis? And what are the trade-offs?-
18 MR. LESNICK: Mike? Then we will go to Mike 39 Weber.
20 MR. WILLIAMS: I think that a generic approach is 21 the way to go. And I think that you can develop a standard 22 which will address the risks. There can be a risk-based 23 standard, which still can use a generic approach. I.think 24 you do have to allow flexibility for differences from site 25 to site. And that includes not just radiological ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
135 ,
1 differences, whether or not it is a long or.shortl half-2 life, but differences in site-specific factors, such'as 3 geology and the environmental ~ surroundings, which should 4 have been addressed also during the licensing process, when 5 the initial environmental impact statement was done to" 6 license that facility.
7 So, you do have a basis there in which to make 8 site-specific corrections, as well as the environmental 9 monitoring program that has taken place throughout the 10 operation of the site. I think, in establishing a generic 11 approach, you can select a risk, and you don't have to 12 select it with regard to whether it's-a long or short half-13 life. I think that's the way to go; but you do need the 14 flexibility to account for site-specific factors.
15 MR. WEBER: One of the concerns I believe I heard 16 Mr. FCster, who I don't see at the table right now, voiced 17 this morning was -- as we went around the table was.how do 18 local officials' console the local publics, when they 19 constantly see the standards in change? And itLmight be 20 productive to hear the participants' views on that. What we-21 are about here is discussing the advantages and
, 22 disadvantages of codifying some generic standards, versus 23 continuing more or less with the site-specific application 24 of guidance that is presently available. What l 25 disadvantages, if you will, are associated with codifying l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
! Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
136 1 new standards? Because it'is likely that,-at least in some 2 cases, they would be different1from what is-presently being 3 used. And somebody somewhere is going to haveL to explain to 4 some public why they are different.
5 MR. RESCEK: I would like to add to what I said ,
6 earlier. But, fjrst, let me repeat-that the risk-based-7 standard would ensure that the community was protected.
8 But, also, by having a generic standard, which- you're 9 allowing -- as you are allowing the licensees to be able to 10 plan for decommissioning in the future, because they know 11 what the standards are, the models of how their particular 12 site characteristics might be dealt with would be available-13 in the reg guides. And so, this really-benefits the 14 community, because these licensees can get on the process 15 quickly of developing decommissioning plans to the standard, 16 and get the decommissioning done. If you rely on-a site-17 by-site, case-by-case basis, what you are really going to do 18 is you are going to deal the decommissioning process as 19 these licensees then have to work case-by-case to figure out 20 what they need to do to meet the requirements of the 21 regulators.
22 MR. LESNICK: Besides this kind of timing, 23 predictability aspects, other disadvantages to having 24 generic -- potential disadvantages to having' generic 25 criteria? Herman? You had your hand up.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
137 1 MR. CEMBER: Incidently, I support.what Frank said 2 that, if we have numbers, we could meet'them. And no matter 3 what the numbers are, the nuclear community can meet it. It-4 is only a matter of cost. The lower down you are, the more 5 at cost to do this. So, but, if you-know what it'is, you 6 can factor the -- factor everything in.
7 The other thing that I wanted to say, in response 8 to the question you just raised about -- is the.1 a possible 9 disadvantage, and that is, it does -- things _do vary from-10 site to site. And we are using one word over here:
11 interchangeably when we really mean two things. We are 12 talking about a risk. And the way we use the word risk 13 scientifically is quite different from what it means in the 14 general vernacular. In the general vernacular it means an ,,
15 eminent threat to life or limb; whereas, the way we are 16 using it, it is the measure of the probability of some 17 adverse result. And so, the probability of getting this 18 adverse result, whatever it is, depends on let's say the 19 inherent toxicity of the material, and how much.of this 20 toxic substance you will get into you to the site of toxic 21 action.
22 The other thing now that becomes site-specific is 23 -- and the other word that I am thinking of is the word 24 hazard. Now, the hazard of something includes two factors.
25 It includes, number one, the inherent risk, once you get l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, .D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
138 1 this. toxic substance into you, and secondly,-it includes the 2 probability of.getting this into you~ . And so -- and-It 3 think, whereas, the first -- the first part, the risk, 4 itself is-a function if the substance' itself, the second 5 part, the probability of getting it into you, or'getting a-6 toxic amount into you is really site-specific, and:that's 7 really what determines the hazard. And so, I think.ve 8 should. distinguish between those two. So, if something is -
9 - well, I don't, let's take a reductio ad absurdum. If-it 10 is happening on the moon, it is really, no, matter how toxic 11 the substance is, it is not really going to bother us over 12 here. I am not saying we should contaminate the' moon, by.
13 the way. But, I said it was a reductio ad absurdum. But, 14 somewhere in between the moon and right next door to us is-15 somothing in between, where we have to consider also the 16 probability of getting a toxic amount to-people.
17 MR. LESNICK: Don, you have got to help draft some 18 of this stuff.
19 MR. COOL: I have got a question which goes back 20 to the concern that was raised earlier a couple of times 21 about the potential for differences in-changes in limits r
22 over the course of time, things keep changing...That issue 23 was raised. And I have heard it indicated, not in.this 24 workshop yet today, and that's why I am asking'this question 25 -- that a site-specific standard has the disadvantage that ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950
139 1 every time you turn around you-have got a.different level 2 established. 'And every time you go through the process,. yon 3 have a different level established, which would seem to me,-
4 sitting here listening to be the exact problem that you have 5 expressed concern with. And what I would like is a little 6 bit of feedback as to whether people percei"e that would 7 really be the case, and whether that is a difficulty, or 8 whether that is not the case.
9 MR.-LESNICK: Any reaction?
10 MR. BALL: Just briefly. From a local Government 11 standpoint, I think, for the local community -- and maybe 12 Chris might have another opinion or another perspective of 13 this. I think the general prblic, especially those right i
14 around the facility, or a situation that is being 15 decommissioned probably would gain some comfort level in the 16 fact-that you had some established limits, whether they are 17 generic and had the variability of maybe doing something 18 more than those generic standards. At least they have a 19 standard to know that you have to work with from the 20 beginning. In.our local situation at Bird Avenue, I think,.
21 part of the difficulty obviously there is a. general public 22 mistrust in society of Government, in general, and what 23 standards are we using to go about doing our business.
24 However, if we don't have a clearly identified standards = ,
25 even to begin with, that just accelerates that confusion and l.-?
l ANN RILEY- & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
'l 140 i
1 mistrust. -
l
\
2 MR. LESNICK Other reactions to the go.stion Don '
3 posed? Mike Williams?
i 4 MR. WILLIAMS: Hjth regard to changing standards, j 5 I think it is importhnt to point out that standards have-not 6 been changed historically because of a necessary scientific; tl 7 basis that there had been a (;.ange in the risk associated ,
a with those standards. For instance, the-change ei 10 CFR 9 Part 20'. If I recall, the bach-fit analysis that NRC.did,-
10 the statement was made that the purpose for changing 10 CFR l 11 20 was to make it more compatible with international-12 regulations, and more consistent, not for the purpose of 13 providing additional protection, for the public health and-1' safety or for workers. So, when we talk about changing ,
f 15 standards, I think it is very important to not.the 16 difference as to why the standards change.
17 And when you asked Mike a minute ago about how do ,
18 you explain this to people, I think it is extremely :
19 importt.nt to explain that the reasons those standards have-20 changed is not because the initial standards didn't provide-21 adequate and appropriate protection for the health and -
l 22 safety of the public. So, I think, at least if you start .
23 out with a standard, and then, if you decide to-change that
(-
24 later, for whatever reason, societal reasons, political l l
l- 25 reasons, or consistency reasons, then you should explain it ANN -RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, - D. C. 20006 L - _ ._ __ _ _ ._.._... _..___. _(202)_
__3950-293 _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ , _ , _
l 141 1 in that forum. But, I still think that that doesn't 2 override the concern for having a standard to start out with 3 in the first place.
4 MR. LESNICK: Carolyn, you and Don had to kind of 5 vander in the middle of the conversation. I would like to 6 give you both a shot at any reactions to this 1245 item, 7 which is basically general reactions to pros and cons of 8 proceeding with generic criteria, generic standards. I 9 wonder -- you know, we have kind of gone off on some more 10 specific details. But, any general thoughts?
11 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I am going to just pass, 12 partly because I think the things that I would have said are 13 addressed -- some of the things that I would have said are 14 addressed here.
15 MR. LESNICK: On the notes that you have seen 16 already up?
17 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: Yes.
18 MR. LESNICK: Okay. Don?
19 MR. WEDER: I agree with the things I have seen up 20 here addressed.
21 MR. LESNICK: All right. Good. Did you want to 22 say something?
23 MR. WEBER: Another aspect that's useful to 24 consider, in generic, versus site-specific standards. It 25 could be argued that if we continued applying site-specific ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
1 142 1 standards, yes, that would provide some more flexibility for 2 accommodating site-specific characteristics which could 3 affect the exposure, long-term exposure of individuals to 4 the contamination, and the risks associated with that 5 exposure. But, you could also argue that, if we'took that .
6 approach, it would allow more opportunity for local 7 involvement, public involvement, as part of the negotiation 8 process for what those clean-up criteria should be. If we 9 apply ALARA, for example, one model of ALARA would involve 10 some subject analysis in part of all the many facets that 11 come into play in an ALARA analysis. And, in that process, 12 the public citizens that are most immediately affected by 13 the decommissioning, local community officials, the state 14 officials, other interested parties, may have a different 15 weighing of those benefits associated with the 16 decommissioning. So, I would like some feedback on that, if 17 people have some thoughts.
18 MR. LESNICK: We need the mike.
19 MR. ALLEN: Just one additional note about the 20 apparent observation that all radiation standards are 21 decreasing over time. That is really not the case. And, in 22 fact, I am not -- I think it's unfair to ask EPA to explain 23 how the radium in drinking water standard rose from.five to 24 20, but, let's just say tt:at that's a good example of some 25 work that they did which, for whatever reason, yielded a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
143-1 result which is an obvious change from previous practice.
2 But, it certainly wasn't down.
3 MR. LESNICK Bob?
4 MR. THOMAS: I like what you said. It makes 5 sense. And I think that this -- if you set the standard.
6 that you wish to have thht makes you comfortable, then 7 regardless of site to site, y,ou can handle the site 8 specifically as that site, which I think ia=what you were 9 saying, and let the people who are involved make their i 10 decisions on the -- what ALARA really means to them.- And, ,
11 in other words, AIARA is not a quantitative term,~it's a 12 qualitative term. And so, you are talking about the town's 13 people deciding, within the limit that you have set, that ,
14 may be a generic limit, as to what would satisfy them for a ;
15 given site-. 'And I think that's what you were saying, in 16 which case, that makes good sense to me.
17 MR. CAMERON: -I just wanted to clarify on Mike's 18 point. When we think about generic standards, we don't need 19 necessarily to focus in on the only part of a generic- '
20 standard being some sort of a risk level. You can !
21 establish, in a generic standard, your approach to site 22 clean-up, and, indeed, provide for the. flexibility to -- for 23 the local community to consider ALARA in that generic 24 approach.
25 MR. WILLIAMS: I-think that local community _ ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court . Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C.: 20006 (202) L 293-3950
._ - _ _ _ . m ._ ._m_ __ m. __m
144 1 involvement is important-in deciding the issues. As far as 2 doing that for every single licensee, and every 3 decommissioning step that goes forward, I would refer you to 4 the experience that we have had in licensing. nuclear power 5 plants, for instance. How there is a strong push'by the 6 Commission, as you are well-aware, to go'to a "one-step" 7 licensing process. In doing that, the Commission has made 8 it very clear,-in all that I hava-read,-that, by going to a 9 one-step process, they are not eliminating. input from the 10 public, they_are not eliminating the ability to voice 11 concerns and express that. It is a matter-of economics,-if 12 you will, and it is also a matter of regulatory burden that 13 exists. And so I think that you would create a tremendous 14 amount of burden on both licensees.and you,-as regulators, ,,
15 as well, by having individual, every site go ' through the 16 decommissioning hearing process, if you will,.versus.
17 establishing a one-step, here is a standard, you meet that, 18 then, if there are site-specific factors, consider those.
19 So, I just caution you against that. And we do have a 20 historical perspective from other examples.
21 MR. LESNICK: Yes. We are going to take a.few 22 more here.
23 MR. CAMERON I guess I would just like to 24 clarify, just so that I wasn't misunderstood. -I.wasn't 25 trying to advocate that particular approach, but'just to 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C.- 20006 (202) 293-3950
H I
J
-145 1 point out that a rulemaking can accommodate either a broad )
)
2 approach or a specific approach to the standard-setting l l
3 problem.
4 MR. WEBER: Just to amplify that. I don't want my 5 questions to be misrepresented as I am taking a view on 6 something. We are here to hear from you. And I see that as 7 a useful way to solicit that kind-of fea tback. I am trying-8 to be like a sounding board, because.you all are_ telling us-9 stuff, and I s.A.n % kind of clarify and point out some of-
~
10 the pros and cons,astaciated with that, and get that kind of 11 feedback, because, aftpr all, that's what we are here for.
12 MR. LESNICK: Yes. That is an important 13 clarification. I don't think any of the folks _around:the 14 table, at least that's what most of you told us over the 15 phone -- is that you don't want the NRC and. EPA just.to kind 16 of sit here and stare at you for two days, especially since 17 they have got to go back and play what if games, and how' 18 about this, and this -- so, we want to give them the 19 opportunity to throw out, kind of well, if you looked-at 10 this way, what about that. We don't want that to, dominate.
21 Dut, unless someone has got a major problem with that, I 22 would like to pretty much encourage that, okay? In that 23 spirit, Allen, and then we will get to Jack. -i 24 MR.-RICHARDSON: I would like to ask a question 25 related to Mike was raising. We have a limited amount of l-L ANN RILEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters-1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
, (202)l 293-3950 :
1 i
146 l i
1 resources to deal with the clean-up problem. And I think 2 part of the question of how site-specific we should be is t
3 tied up with the question of resources. It costs a lot of 4 time and money to do individual site assessments, and to 5 reach individual judgments for individual sites. We have ,
6 many thousands of sites potentially to clean up. And so I 7 think part of the question -- and I would ask you to 8 consider this -- of how site-specific we should be, or how 9 generic we should be is tied into the question of how much -
10 - how much of those resources should go into assessment and 11 decision-making at individual sites, as opposed to actual 12 clean-ups on a generic basis.
13 MR. LESNICK: Jack, then Bob.
14 MR. HONEY: I just wanted to go back and comment ,
15 on the subject of-giving the local communitycsome input. ~ I- 4 16 think they certainly should have, to some extent. But, I think the standards to be met should be established-ahead of 17 18 time for a nue st of reasons. One, not the.least of which 19 is decommissioning funding. I don't know how in the world' 20 you could ever do that if you didn't know what the target 21 was. And, further, I can see, given the position of_a 22 community, it could-range anywhere from mild to wild, if you 23 will, depending upon the-relationship-that exists between 24 the community and the facility. So, I-would definitely 4 25 discourage that. And the other thing that I would ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street,' N.W., Suite 300 Washington,: D. C. 20006
^
(202) 293-3950
147 1 encourage, as far as our specific _ facility goes - -we are 2 talking in terms of risk, and what-have you. But, the final 3 analysis is, when we get ready to decommission our. facility, f
4 I need to be able to know a number that I have got to-5 decommission to, parts per million uranium that I can go out -
6 and take a sample of and say it's there or it's not there.-
7 And so, somehow in the regulations it has got to be very:
8 clear to us and to the regulator, and-to the community how 9 we would get from what is real to what is in the 10 regulations.
11 MR. LESNICK: Bob?
12 MR. oWEN As far as the down side to generic 13 regulations. -It-certainly may address the absolute risk, 14 for the most part, even though it may use some nuances- ,,
15 there, site by site, but it certainly doesn't do anything 16 for the perceived risk. And, it certainly is very difficult 17 in the technical rule to address' perceived risk, as anyone 18 who reads the papers will know. Certainly that is the issue 19 of the day, from the general populace, who may notishare you-20 views, from the technical perspective. And we_are_having to 21 factor that into the equation more and more as time goes on.
22 I assure you that it is being factored in very heavily, for 3 23 proposal _or rad waste _ facilities, right or wrong. 'And it- ,
24 just underscores the need to somehow give consideration to-25 state and local concerns relative to site decontar.ination ANN--RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court Reporters 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
_ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ . l(202) 293-3950_
l 148 i
1 and decommissioning. And it is very difficult to factor l l
2 that into the generic rule. So, even though you do that as l l
3 a baseline, you have absolutely got to have flexibility to l 4 address those other issues, and allow, in some part at I
5 least, to a local standpoint.
6 MR. LESNICK: And some of that was implicit and 7 explicit in the discussion this morning about what was 8 important, and what had to get talked about, so that that is 9 real good.
10 We have time for a few more. Carolyn? Why don't 11 we get you into this?
12 MS. RAFFENSPERGER I am going to say something 13 that is probably intuitively obvious, and that is that there 14 is something in between site specific and generic standards. ..
15 And that is that there is a taxonomy of sites. All sites 16 are not created equal. The nuclear power plants are not the 17 same as a medical -- the Mediphysics, the Amershams, kinds 18 of sites. There really are kinds of sites, and generic 19 standards can be set for different kinds of nodes on that 20 taxonomy.
21 MR. LESNICK; )kay. Thanks. Don?
22 MR. FOSTER: I think that really what needs to be 23 brought to their attention is that a generic standard has an 24 advantage from a local perspeutive, that, at least in our 25 instance, we had -- they went through -- they had been going ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
149 r 1 through a site-specific standard, and there'is a lot of j 2 doubt among the residents of the community as_to.whether the 3 company who was doing the work is-tied very closely with the ;
4 NRC at one time, or the state IDNS who is doing our work
-{
5 now. And there are questions that-get raised as to -- when .;
6 you are going through and developing a standards, as to.what [
7 -- who is relating to whom, in other words. And the 8 question from the public kind of questions I wouldn't say (
9 the objectivity, but they have to go through and question 10 who is working with whom to set the standard?__ If you gave 11 us a standard, if thern was a standard, a generic-standard 12 that -- when you come to the community to do the 13 decommissioning it is great. It is all resolved. I mean, 14 you have a number you are fixed on. But, as you go through .
15 this process, it leaves the citizenu it. a quandary, because l
16 you have got all of these different competing agencies that 17 are looking at these numbers in developing this star.dard.
I 18 And we sit and question what impact is the company having.
19 In our case, the company was doing an original 20 decommissioning plan with the NRC. They were working on it.
21 And it just -- it was difficult, from the citizens' [
22 perspective, to understand I think that process. And then 23 you throw in the aspect of now understanding the-health 24 physics aspect of it and it gets very confusing from the 25 citizens' perspective.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court- Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C.- 20006
-(202) 293 39502
150 ,
1 MR. LESNICKt Good point. A few more. Do you 2 want this too? ,
3 MR. Cool: only if you want me to have it.
4 I would like to go back to what carolyn said a >
5 minute ago, and ask us to look at it fron-the flip side for ,
1 a second.
6 If I understood what you said, carolyn, you were 7 saying that it would be possible to establish perhaps-a 8 different -- a set of generic standards for different types 9 of facilities ~~ the Amersham-type facilities,.vorsus the 10 nuclear power facilities. If I look at it from the opposite 11 side and say once.I have taken an action o release.the L
12 site, then do all sites become equal, and does that then 4
13 sort of throw out the notion that they were somehow 14 different when I looked at it from-the standpoint of what a 15 they were doing? l f
16 MS. RAFFENSPERGERt I-think there are a lot of 17 ways of looking at decommissioning.- Decommissioning is a 18 verb. And, to that end, it is a process. And so, as we 19 look at a process of decommissioning, then I think different' 20 kinds of sites -- it is a useful way?of looking at~it. . The 21 flip side is also correct. If you want to have.a bottomline 22 namber, that might also be appropriate. However, I am-not-t 23 convinced that-that's a given. When I look at the different 24 kinds of radionuclides out there, some are real wiggly..
25 Some are just mobile, and move all over-kingdom come. .And
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. - Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. - C. 20006 ,
'(202) 293-3950
1 1
l 151 1 tritium doesn't stay in one place for long.
2 Some other radionuclides sit and just, you know, 3 take their time going anywhere. And so, in terms of 4 mobility, in terms of hazard, a standard, a single number 5 generic standardin -- one number that you can give to a ,
i 6 community or you can give to an industry may or may not make ]
7 sense. So, I think of those kinds of taxonomies both as to 8 kind of sites, and that the most useful may be to look at 1 l
9 what kind of facility it was. It may give you a clue as_.to-10 what the radionuclides were, what kinds of hazards, what 11 kinds of mobility are involved.
12 MR. LESNICK: We are going to take the three cards 13 that are up, and then move on in the conversation.
14 Richard. I am sorry. You have had yours up'for a ,,_
15 while, then Chris, then Robert. -
16 MR. ALLEN: I don't think that those of us who 17 like the idea of a generic standard, which does include a -,
18 site-specific review, ALARA review, I don't-think any of us, 19 or I would hope that none of us expect that that site-20 specific ALARA review would be a black box -- a. black box to 21 the licensees and a black box to the citizens. I would like 22 to see this process run through its course and wind up'with-f 23 an ALARA review process which is well-understood, where a-24 licensee or a member of the community with the right 25 education could figure out where the regulatory agency was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
-Washington,- D.' C. 20006
_ _ . _ - . _ . _ . _ . . - . _ _ - .~. _.
202) Qp 1,-, , n _ , , ,- _-
152 1 going. And it would not be a black box to those people who 2 had that interest.
3 MR. LESNICK: Robert? And then we will finish up 4 with Chris.
5 MR. HOLDEN I am not a technical person. I 6 worked on these issues in a previous life, but I have been 7 away from it for several years.
8 MS. STINSON: Could you speak up a little bit, 9 Robert?
10 MR. HOLDEN: I was saying that I wasn't working on 11 some of these issues in a previous life, but have been away 12 from them for several years. In addition, I was speaking of 13 corporate differences, I am reminded of what people tell us 14 in terms of -- you ask a lot of questions, be careful, ,,
15 because one of these days someone is going to be asking you 16 a lot of questions. So, with that, I think it has been 17 noted that the process will require a lot of community 18 development, and involvement of the community in safeguard 19 to assure that the communities are involved in the process.
20 There is a history of nonfeasance as well as malfeasance by 21 many Federal agencies.- This can go to, as you may well kna 22 aware, the recommendation and remediation in any country 23 that has taken place and not taken place. It is still a 24 problem. Some of the people that will be coming to this 25 table to speak their minds, speak their issues and listen ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293 3950
153 i Will be not hesitant to express their feelings about some of 2 these problems out there.
3 As we have already noted, different sites have 4 different taxonomies, not only on the current use, but prior 5 use, many years before many of these facilities were in -
6 place. So, we need to keep that in mind, a well as someone 7 else who mentioned questions about how much money will be 8 thrown at these approaches -- the cost / benefit analysis. I 9 won't belabor the point of how much money is being thrown at 10 the problems. We might want to collaborate with someone 11 privately or individually, you know, on some of these areas.
12 Dut, you know, that should be coupled with pretty serious i
13 responsibility of the Federal agencies and of.those 14 companies that have a certain amount of economic positive ..
15 impact from their operations.
16 MR. LESNICK: Good. Thank you.
17 Chris.
18 MS. TREPAL The one point I wanted to kind of 19 toss out was when local communities or states have already 20 developed standards that they are comfortable with. How is 21 that doing to interface with the generic standard? For 22 example, like the 12 states, or more who cannot have anti-23 BRC laws -- how is that going to come into play with a 24 generic standard, in terms of filing decommissioning on a 25 site? And how is the state or local community going-to be i
l I
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l-Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
-1 l
)
154 1 involved and have their:say-so?- ,
2 -MR. LESNICK .Is that some of what could be I
3 discussed in the cross-cut-discussion also do you think?
4 MS. TREPAL: Sure.
5 MR. LESNICK Yes. Let's focus it in that area, 6 if that is all right then. .
7 Let me ask, in closing this down, is there anyone i 8 -- EPA, NRC folks -- any last either reactions, comments, or 9 quick questions, Mike, before we move on in the agenda?
10 MR. WEBER: 1 had a question _to Rich Allen.- Do~
11 you have ideas about how we would make-ALARA not besa black 7 12 box?
13 MR. ALLEN: Well, we have some ideas. I am-not: J 14 sure we are going to get that far in the next couple of- ,
15 days. ,
16 MR. WEBER:- okay.
17 MR. LESNICK: In the. course of the conversation, I 18 am hoping you were going to bringfthat up. The question was .
19 -- to Richard is -- some notion about how do you.make this 20 not be a black box, and we are saying we have got:some, f 21 ideas, and this is the right two days to at least get that .
22 started and put-a few on the table. And, I am assuming 23 after these two days we will throw those out. All right?t 24 Good. Thank ye" very much. That is helpful._ It?
25 I also know we got a little-' bit '
is a broad question I know.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters-1612 K. - Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. - 20006 (202) 293-3950i
._.__._ ___.__ _ _ _ _ ._ __ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
i 155 !
1 off here and there. But, I think it is important to kind of 2 get us in the ballpark here. I am going to pass it~around ,
3 the table, and then we could pass it to the back as well. I i 4 think we have got enough, a matrix. inuen Barbara took .you ;
5 through the agenda,_and as we interacted with th's two- f 6 agencies, interacted with you all around this table and some 7 of the observers as well, in preparing for this, as you 8 know, in the issues paper,:there are four regulatory' '
9 frameworks outlined as potential ways of going about -- of 10 getting-at these generic criteria. And Don cool. outlined 11 those, and also outlined that there may be some 12 possibilities of mixing and matching or other alternatives.
13 But, in thinking about how to assess the relative 14 merits, the pros and cons of these different frameworks, and ,,
15 in consulting with all of you and the two agencies, it seems .
16 that there were some very important components to understand 17 kind of what they'get you and what they don't get you. I-e 18 think Don Cool kind of talked about kind of windows into a. i 19 house, or you could think about lenses on a camera --
20 looking at the same issue, but we want to look at it.from 21 different vantage points. And, in talking to folks, it 22 sounded like talking about and better understanding what-do 23 they_do pro _and-con, vis-a-vis human health and the 24 environment; what do they-do in terms of understanding 25 cost, economics, implementation-type stuff; what do they_do i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street,. N.W., Suite 300 ,
. Washington, D. C. 20006 i (202) 293-3950-
- _-.- - -. .- -a
1 156 i in terms of waste managements what do they do in terms of -
2 - vis-a-vis other regulstory frameworks -- that those are j 3 the kinds of things we have got to look at. So, this is the !
4 beginning of what we call the cross-cutting discussion. All -
5 right. We are going to be in the same format folks around 6 the table.
7 For observers, after we go around this go around, 8 we will stop and get some feedback from you all as well.
9 So, if you would look at your matrix, we are 10 basically in the top left-hand box here. We want to spend i 11 some time, if you look at the 145 slot, focusing on and 12 thinking about these four frameworks, and what ways do the ,
13 alternative regulatory approaches protect human health, 14 safety and the environment. You see there are some-possible 15 subquestions there we want to make sure we get'to. But, 16 let's open it up that way generally. And, with your 17 permission, let's go on -- if you look at the left side of 18 your matrix, let's take a look at them perhaps one by.one, 19 and reflecting on the risk limits approach -- kind of 20 advantage disadvantages, from the perspective of protection 21 of human health, safety and the environment. So, let's open 22 the discussion for that. Reactions? What do you see as you 23 thought about the issues? What does that type of regulatory _
24 approach get you? What are the pros and cons?
25 MS. STINSoN: Herman?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
~
(202) 293-3950
157.
1 MR. CEMBERt A question. . When the top of column 2 says protection of human health and environnetit, and I don't ,
3 see how the -- any of these' things really affect the !
4 environment when we have some residual-nuclide -- ,
5 radionuc.1 % contamination, for example.- And even.if we had
~
6 doses the .ere thousands of MR per year, I don't see how 7 that would affect the environment. And when I am. talking.
8 about the environment now, I mean the grass and the trees 9 and the fish and the flowers.
10 MR. LESNICK: The natural-systems.
11 MR. CEMBER: The natural systems. And so we mean-12 the natural systems here, or --
13 MR. LESNICK: Yes. Yes. That is what-is meant.-
14 And that is the kind of feedback we want to hear around-the ,,
15 table -- is --
16 MR. CEMBER: Well, how would the kinds of doses 17 we're talking about, or the kinds of-risks to people, and I 18 understand that -- how would that influence the environment 19 at all, in any way whatsoever?
20 MS. STINSON: Anybody have a response-to that?
21 MR. LESNICK: Allen?
22 MR. RICHARDSON: Well,_I would like to enlarge thei 23 definition of environment in order to-answer that question, 24 because I agree with your premise, Herman, that the doses 25 that we are talking about here it's --
ANN nlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.' '
Court Reporters 1612 K.- Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. .C. 20006 - ,
~. . ; (202F 2939Q; ,,_, =_,,__ , , __ _ _
158 1 MR. CEMBER: If you are talking about social 2 environmental that is something else.
3 MR. RICHARDSON: No, no. The broadening that I 4 was going to suggest was resources, which may have human 5 uses in the future, and ground water is probably the best 6 example of that.
7 MS. STINSOM: Okay. Other questions? Any 8 comments, responses to this question? Go ahead, Henry.
9 KR. ROYAL: I mentioned in my opening statement 10 that I was interested in public health issues. One of the 11 disparities that I haven't been able to understand is, as 12 you all know, we are facing a health care crisis, where the 13 cost of medical care is -- has become exorbitant, and wo 14 obviously have to do something to contain the cost. The ..
15 problem that I am.having is that when I look at how much 16 money we spend in medicine to prevent the cancer and compare 17 it with how much money we are talking about spending in la decommissioning plants, in order to prevent the cancer, 19 there are orders of magnitude difference in the cost that we 20 are talking about. As a public health. advocate, I would 21 like to prevent the most number of cancers that we can 22 prevent. And the only way that we are going to be able to 23 do that is by spending money in proportion to the risk.
24 And, if we do anything other than spend money in proportion 25 to the risk, we are going to cause people to needlessly die ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)-293-3950 . ._
y 159 1 from cancer, because that -- the finite resources we have 2 will not be available to prevent the cancer deaths.
3 MS. STINSON: I think what we would like to do is 4 hear comments like that and then have you specifically 5 reflect on the impacts of that, or the -- those kinds of 6 comments relative to the four objectives.
7 MR. ROYAL: I thought that maybe I didn't make it 8 clear why I thought it was relevant. The topic is 9 protection of human health. And the -int that I am trying 10 to make is if that is truly what we want to do, protect 11 human health, then we have to spend our resources that we 12 have available to protect human health wisely.
13 MS. STINSON: Right.
14 MR. LESNICK: What we want to do though is try and,,
15 put you in the shoes of the regulators here. Because they 16 have got these four frameworks that they are thinking about.
17 They want to take a look at what are the advantages and 18 disadvantages of each. So right now we want you to look at 19 the risk limits approach, which is the predominant approach 20 now, as I understand it. How do you think it functions now 21 or could function, in terms of using that as a basis for 22 generic criteria to protect health and the environment?
23 MS. STINSON: Relative to your very relevant 24 point.
25 MR. WEBER: Could I ask a question?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
160 1 MS. STINSON: Sure. Go ahead.
2 MR. 'EDER: .f I could just clarify. I believe 3 your point is that the money spent on decommissioning 4 facilities to reduce what is perceived as a low risk could 5 be better spent treating and preventing cancer? 'Is that 6 part of it? Okay, that is why I am asking the clarifying 7 question.
8 MR. ROYAL: I believe that we should prevent all 9 preventable deaths. And the only way was can maximize the 10 way we prevent all -- as many preventable deaths as we can, 11 is by spending the resources that we have to do that wisely.
12 And the issue that comes up when we talk about 13 decommissioning plants is, if you look at the risk limits 14 approach, and you compare that with the approach that we use ..
15 in medicine, we are spending orders of magnitude more money 16 on the risk limits approach then we spend on medicine. And 17 I am pointing out that evan the risk limits approach, or all 18 of these approaches don't accomplish the goal of maximumly.
19 protecting the public's health.
20 MS. STINSON: Okay. Good. Thanks.
21 Other comments relative to protection of human 22 health and the environment, and the use of risk limits? Go 23 ahead, Frank?
24 MR. RESCEK It was mentioned earlier by, I think, 25 Ellen, and also I think also mentioned and woven into the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
_(202)-.293 3950
161 1 discussions by Don and Mike, that the NRC regulations have 2 been risk-based, and we have a historical precedent where 3 risk-based regulations have provided a very good safety 4 record for protecting the health and safety of occupational 5 workers, as well as the public. And, even the recent study 6 for the cancer assessment, or risk and the environment 7 around nuclear power plants came out to show that there was 8 no cancer risk observable whatsoever. And we have been 9 operating for years under risk-based limits for exposure to 10 the environment and to the community. So, I think that the 11 history shows risk-based limits work.
12 MS. STINSON: Okay. Good. Thanks.
13 Mike?
14 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I would agree with that.
15 There is no reason that risk-based limits can't offer 16 appropriate protection for the health and the environment.
17 I would add to that the fact that obviously there is no such 18 tuing as zero risk. As Herman pointed cut earlier, it is a 19 statistical probability of an event taking place. There is 20 no such thing as zero. There is some finite probability, no 21 matter what you look at. Likewise, you will not get to zero 22 here. And I think the key would be, in setting a risk-23 based limit, do you go for what is the level between 24 adequate and inadequate protection, or do you go-for 25 something far below that, such as NRC han -- or NCRP, excuse ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
I 162 1 me, has used -- the idea of making things relative to " safe 2 industries?" What is the appropriate limit? What level of 3 risk is appropriate? And I think it ties into what Henry 4 was saying earlier. And that is that do we make the risk so 5 low through decommissioning that, indeed, we've taken up 6 resources that are causing us greater risk in other areas?
7 And there has to-be a balance. You can't look at a risk 8 limit in isolation in and of itself; you have to look at 9 also the resources you are expanding to achieve those 10 limits. But, yes, it can protect the human health and the 11 environment.
12 MS. STINSON: Good. Thanks.
13 Mark?
14 MR. DORUFF Mike just said a lot of what I was ,,
15 going to say. I was going to tie what Dr. Cember said to 16 what Dr. Royal said. When you are dealing with radiological 17 hazards, you are dealing with a cciculated risk -- something 18 that is not a well-known ~~ you are going to have a well-19 known result -- a well-documented result, if you take away 20 health care if you derive resources, financial and human 21 resources away from health care. So, I think, if you are 22 dealing with a calculated or estimated risk when you are 23 dealing with radiological hazards, the best thing you can do 24 is work to a standard that is based on scientific 25 recommendations, and then optimize your efforts with ALARA, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
163 1 so that you don't unnecessarily take resources away from 2 areas where you have well-documented, very obvious risks 3 involved if you shut down medical facilities, if you don't 4 make research chemicals available to research facilities.
5 MS. STINSON: Don, and then Allen.
6 MR. COOL I would like to come back to a question 7 that was raised a little bit ago, which was that v9 ought 8 not to be expending more resources on decommissioning than 9 we are expending on health care. But, once again, if you 10 will permit me, see if we can look at it from a flip side or 11 an opposite side. Because I have heard elsewhere that one 12 perceived disadvantage of a limitation-type approach is that 13 the value which then gets thrown around, can be perceived as 14 being too high. And so I would like to see whether --'go ..
15 around the table, share that, or disagree with that 16 approach, and how that ties in with what we have been 17 discussing here over the last couple of minutes, in terms of 18 providing the same level of protection for different types 19 of activities, decommission, medicine and otherwise.
20 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, mine is coupled, I guess, 21 and it was raised by Mark's comment that he preferred a 22 limit that was scientifically-based, and then ALARA below 23 that. And we hear this very often -- this phrase, 24 scientifically-based. And so I as curios about what it is 25 that you think, let's assume you are talking about the ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
164 1 hundred millirems or the 500 millirems -- in what way is 2 that scientifically based. Because my understanding of that 3 is that that is just another fairly arbitrary decision about-4 an acceptable level of risk.
5 MS. STINSON: Go ahead.
6 MR. DORUFFt I don't think it is our role in the 7 workshop to actually determine what the level is going to 8 be, whether it is a hundred or 500. What I am saying is 9 that we are in the business of optimizing our resources when 10 va decommission facilities. So, let's let the experts --
11 those that can come up with the standards, develop them on 12 sound scientific knowledge, and let us use our resources 13 wisely and effectively to arrive at a level of removing 14 activity so that we can protect the public and, at the same ..
15 tino, not detract resources from other areas of benefit.
16 MS. STINSON: Other comments in this area?
17 Go ahead, Herman.
18 MR. CEMBER: Just a comment on scientific things.
19 And I can have a long discussion with you in the break on 20 what you just said. But, we talk about scientifically-21 based. I don't think that's.perhaps -- I think perhaps 22 that's a misnomer. It's probably numbers that are given out 23 by scientists who diddle around with statistics and with 24 mathematical models. Scientifically-based implies that you 25 postulate something, and you test it, and, if the test is ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I 165 1 compatible with your model, then you say that that model is 2 valid, and if the test results are incompatible, then you 3 throw out that model and you start over again. That's my 4 concept of what the scientific method is. So, I think we 5 should distinguish between scientists and scientific .
6 methods.
7 MR. LESNICK: You can tell the society guy is 8 here.
9 MR. WILLIAMS: I would just amplify on what Herman 10 said by saying that I would relate it to what de we have 11 that tells us what are the effects of radiation? And when 12 we look at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation and the 13 work they've done on the Hiroshima, Nagasaki data, as 14 someone has pointed out earlier, and as has been stated by ,,
15 that foundation, there has been no observable effects at 16 doses below 20 rem. And the minimum dose at which effects 17 have been obcervable in the Hiroshima, Nagasaki population 18 is 20 to 40 rem. Keep in mind that that is acute dose.
19 Then when we talk about decommissioning, we are talking 20 about chronic dose. Then you really have to add what they 21 call a dose reduction effectiveness factor of at least two.
22 When you do that you are saying 40 to 80 rem is the minimum 23 dose at which you are going to observe any effects 24 whatsoever. That is what science tells us based on our 25 analysis of actual data. That is our experiment, if you i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C 20006 (202) 293 3950
__m 3 166 1 will, that Herman was talking about.
2 And I agree also with what Mark said. We, as a 3 group, no matter how distinguished we maybe in this room, we 4 are not going to be able to establish what a number is and 5 give you a firm basis for that. But, I think we have -- I 6 know we have groups that can do that, NCRP, ICRP, and other 7 such groups.
8 MR. RICHARDSON I don't want to make a habit of 9 responding, but I think I need to to that one. The limits -
10 - what you have said is absolutely correct, with one 11 exception I think, and that is that the limits that have 12 been chosen that we have been talking about, and that are 13 often mentioned as being scientifically-based limits, are 14 not based on the assumption that there are no effects at ,,
15 those levels. They are based on the assumption that there 16 are effects, and that we use a linear dose effect 17 relationship to establish what those effects are. And so 18 there is an additional judgment which is entirely non-19 scientific. And that is my point about the level of risk 20 that is acceptable.
21 MR. WILLIAMS: If I might just amplify on what I 22 said earlier. You are exactly right. And it goes back to 23 what someone said earlier, about we're dealing with levels 24 below the area in which you can observe effects. So, 25 therefore, it becomes a matter of it is a lincar ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l 167 1 extrapolation, a linear quadratic? !!ow are you going to 2 estimate what the effects are? You are exactly right.
3 There is no data that suggests that there are indeed 4 effects. In Peer Committee said that the true risk may be 5 zero at those low doses. I am not sure there is such a 6 thing as zero though.
7 MS. STINSON: Mike.
8 MR. WEBERt I think this is an interesting 9 discussion. What we are about here is what are those issues 10 and considerations that need to play into setting some 11 acceptable risk level or some other approach? And I am glad 12 this is out on the table. It is important to recognize that 13 we have not been able to observe effects. Some would argue 14 that we would not be able to observe effects. So, that is 15 an inappropriate point for comparison. And we have already 16 had the benefit from NCRP, ICRP, other organi.*..ations like 17 that because they stated their recommendations. I think 18 what we need to hear -- the agencies need to hear is okay, 19 how do we take those stated recommendations, and how do we 20 input all the additional considerations that go into 21 selecting those limits that are necessary to protect the l
22 members of the public and the environment.
23 MS. STINSON: Go ahead, Pam.
24 MS. RUSSELL: I would like to add also that there.
25 are certain decisions and issues associated with this i
t i
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 p
w - . . . .~ . .-.
q; t
c168 l 1 rulemaking that science has a very interesting < hearing.on,: 1 2 and that with the scientific underpinnings thatiscienceL f
~' would be very-helpful. There are other' decisions and issues ,
4 that the science is not going to be'that-helpful"on;that~you -
t 5- may.look at the: science and-it will have some beaiing on it.
~
6 But, ultimately, things come down. For instance, what risk-7 levnl is acceptable? Nowr you may be-looking.at'a good.
6 scientific correlation as to what effects and what- :
s 9 probabilities and whatever. But, what risk _ level is-10 acceptable is not really that much of a scientific decision.
-11 It is really more of what is acceptable to home,'which.I .'
12 think is what Carolyn v*s trying to say in the beginning. :
13 And that is something where-the public input-is very very 14 _ pertinent in this rulemaking. ,,
,L.
15 MS. STINSON: Jack?
' 16 !!R. HONEY: I would just like to remind us of-some
. - 17 comments that have already been made,_particularly with I w 18 respect to the ICRP-and NCRP. One, that is a body of' 19 recognized people that presumably are pretty. good at what 20- they do. There i.s some credibility to the numbers of this
. 21 hundred millirem, in that the variations and background.'--
22 actual background from one place to another suggests that 23 there's safety in those numbers. So, I think we can'look to w
24 some things around us, and take some comfort in some of 25 those numbers, and not necesscrily have to look to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,:D. C. 20006 3
'i (202) 293-3950-
169 1 diddlings of people with pencils.
2 - MS. STINSON: Let's take the cards that are up,.
3 and.then possibly move on in the discussion.
4 Robert?
5 MR. OWEN: Well, I was going to y;q what Pam said, 6 basically, that it depends on what risk limit you want to 7 assign and what you want to run with --~whether you are 8 comfortable with one in 10 million, or one-tenth of that'in-9 10 million, or one in a hundred, or one in whatever. And 10 then you go from there to assigning doses that correlate to 11 that. So, you have 90': to start there. I mea., you are 12 asking questions down the road beyond that point. But, then 13 it all goes back to what risk limit do you want to start out 14 with in order to determine what path you are going down.
15 MS. STINSON: Susan?
16 MS. HIATT: I guess I would look at this. issue 17 that it might be more appropriate, insteaa of going one by 18 one, on these four types of objectives, to recognize that 19 they all provide protection of human health and environment.
20 The question is the -- to compare and contrast them. Some 21 of them provide more protection than others. The issue here-22 really is how safe is safe enough? And I don't know that 23 that is really a solvable issue, because it is subjective, 24 it is acceptable to whom, when you are dealing with 25 acceptable risks. And I will be honest, I don't know how i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
170 1 you solve that, because you are dealing with different 2 value judgements,=different risks that people are willing to 3 accept and others aren't. And I think maybe we ought to 4 look at the approach of finding what would be the most' 5 acceptable to the most people. My guess is that would 6 probably be something close to return to background. People 7 may not see that that is scientifically based, but I think 8 that that would provide the most protection. Of course, it 9 is also going to increase costs,_and increase the waste 10 limits and quantities.
11 MR. LESNICK: I think you have hit the nail on the-12 head of what the regulators are trying to struggle with.
13 That's it.
14 MS. STINSoN: Chris? ..
15 MS. TREPAL: Just to some extent I was going to 16 say what Sue and Pam said. You all can choose a number and 17 base it on science, or everybody's best guess;'but the fact 18 is when you have a woman living four doors down from a 19 uranium waste dump going through her fourth miscarriage, or 20 another child in the neighborhood who has an immune 21 deficiency or a skin rash, people make that connection 22 between the facility and their health problems, and they 23 feel absolutely outraged that someone somewhere had decided 24 how much they can be exposed to when their feeling is that 25 they should be exposed to zero or background.
- ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washir,gton, D. C. 20006 I
(202) 293-3950
. +
, . ~ . ... -
~,
171'
- 1. MS. STINSON: Robert,-I thinkiwe go_t you,.right?:-
2 That's okay. -Go ahead,--Richard.. -
3 MR. ALLEN : -Just a response:to.what Chris said.
4 It is unfortunate that people who are -- people:who make 5 that connection only make it when it is because of-6 radioactivity'from a licensee. Unfortunately,_and I think: -
- 7. EPA might agree with me on this one, is that, unfortunately;.
8 most people don't-make that connection when'it'is something'-
~
~
9 like radon in their own home, where there is no licensee. I 10 think they make-that' connection when'it is convenient. They 11 don't always make that connection though.
12 MS. STINSON: Carolyn, and then Don.
13 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I would like-to make two 14 points, one in response to Chris, and:that is-no where in. ..
15 this discussion on decommissioning'have we talked about 16 prevention of contamination as.really the first step in a 17 good rule'on decommissioning -- that the less you have to 18 clean.up, the less this is all a problem. And ' there :is no -
19 place where we talk-about prevention of the initial-20 contamination -- the RCRA approach to Super Fund, as reallyL 21 the good neighbor approach, so that-you' don't have someone.
22 saying my miscarriage is result of this' licensee.
23 And the second point I would like'to make is that 24 the to whom question is pretty interesting with 25 decommissioning. If you have had a good neighbor licens'ee, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W.~, Suite 300 -
Washington,L D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
172 1 and that is that people have been living:vith.that risk all 2 along. And so, if-you have had a good neighbor, this-risk 3 is being reduced. It is different than with the BRC, which 4 was the possibility of this waste coming to my neighborhood,-
5 to my landfill, to my incinerator, which was increasing the 6 risk coming to me. Decommissioning, you are going to be 7 reducing the risk. And so, the way that' folks look at that 8 is going to be a little bit different. And, again, the good 9 neighbor -- folks, I am convinced that, while Voltaire said 10 common sense isn't very common, it is pretty common out 11 there in the general public -- that they make good 1; distinctions for themselves about medical uses of 13 radionuclides, and that they know -- they know when their 14 kids had cancer, and that they have been treated with 15 medical materials, and they can make that distinction from 16 other kinds of plants. And so I think that I really do 17 trust the public in making wise distinctions about kinds of 18 plants and about folks who have been good neighbors all 19 along, and that the risk in decommissioning is actually 20 being reduced no matter what we set the limit at. The 21 public views that I think in a positive way.
22 MS. STINSON: Mary?
23 MS. SINCLAIR: I think I misunderstood some things-24 I have been hearing. I have been hearing that we don't 25 really know for sure if there are any human health effects ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
173 1 from radionuclides. But, I distinctly recall that.there was 2 a study of workers at the Oak Ridge Plant, who obviously 3 believe that they were working at a safe dome, and the 4 number of cancers were much higher than the average 5 population. And then I distinctly remember that there was a 6 study of children around this other plant who developed much 7 higher levels of leukemia in that area. And that was 8 considered a valid study, and was based on radiation and 9 health effects.
10 I cannot buy the fact that there is no evidence 11 that human beings are not affected by radiation. That is 12 what I was hearing.
13 MS. STINSON: Okay. We are going to get a couple 14 of responses to that I am sure. But, before we take those, ..
15 I just want to point out a little bit of -- give you a road 16 map of where we are.
17 What we are trying to do is focus our discussion 18 on the strengths and weaknesses of risk limits and 19 establishment of those relative to protection of human 20 health and the environment. I want to quickly try to move 21 on from that to talking about risk goals and some of those 22 strengths and weaknesses of each of these regulatory 23 approaches. And then there are some subquestions here we 24 want to specifically address as well. So, we have got a lot 25 to cover before 3:15. And, with that reminder, I will go to l
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
174 1 Don Cool.
2 MR. COOL: A large part of what I was going to 3 say, Susan has already said very well. We could,1I-think, 4 spend a great deal of time here talking about the relative 5 models for health effects, and the relative validity or lack 6 of validity with regard to specific studies. Perhaps, 7 however, we can agree that there is going to be used some 8 model which is going to relate health effects to'a radiation 9 dose in scuo way. I acknowledge perhaps that the Model that 10 we had used as an agency assumes, for planning purposes, and 11 regulatory purposes, that there is some risk associated with 12 any degree of exposure or linear hypothesis. And rather 13 than spending a great deal of time around here debating the 14 relative conversion factor, if you will, to get on to one of.,
15 the pros and cons of the approach, and focus -- it might 16 sound heretical. But, one of the things that I would be.
17 very interested to hear are there specific reasons for 18 selecting a particular kind of number? We tossed around the 19 dose limits that are in Part 20. We have tossed around some 20 of the other numbers. And, as yet I have not heard very 21 much in terms of whether or not those sorts of values would 22 be values that people would be comfortable with in a 23 limitation-type approach, or a goal-type approach. And that 24 would be particularly useful to me when I have to go back 25 and actually attempt to put together some sort of standard.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
175
-1 So, that's what I would like to see us go as we move on in 2 the process.
3 MS. STINSON: It sounds like he is taking us 4 directly to bullet two under A.
5 MR. CEMBER: I would like to comment on that.
6 MS. STINSON:- Okay.
7 MR. CEMBER: What you said really isn't exactly 8 right. You haven't heard any -- I have heard reasons for 9 the numbers several-times. If whatever number we arrive at-10 is within the range of variability of natural background, 11 and we all have experience with that, and we see that the 12 variability _in the natural background, we never see any 13 harmful effects from that. So, it_seems to me that any-14 number that we arrive at that it is within the range of ..
15 variability of background should be -- that's a-reasonable 16 basis let me say, whether we agree with that number or not.
17 But, to me, that seems like a reasonable basis for-choosing 18 that particular number.
19 MS. STINSON: So, there is one proposal. Any 20 comment on that, or comment on others? Henry?
21 MS, RAFFENSPERGER: I would like to just respond 22 ~to that. How does that meet -- or ask a question -- how 23 does that fit with ALARA?
l 24 MR. LESNICK: How does it fit with ALARA?
l 25 MS, RAFFENSPERGER: Yes?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. . ._ - . _ m 1761
-1 MR. CEMBER: Well,-ALARA has.the word." reasonably:_
2- achievable."- And it-would be' unreasonableit seems to me,-
3 -to spend a lot of. extra money to goidown_to levels'that:are-4 less than the variability of background.--And to go.back to-5 what Dr. Royal said, we could spend those-bucks on something.- -
4 6 else that would go much further_in helping to improveLour 7 lives or deal -- we don't treat -- deaths, we delay them,.by- .;
8 the way.
1 9 [ Laughter.]
10 MR. CEMBER: I think the word " reasonable" in' 11 ALARA should be emphasized in that.-
12 MS. STINSON: Okay. Mike?
~
Could.-you give the-13 mike to Mike?-
14 MR. WEBER: I would like to just~ clarify.that your,, i 15 point -- you said, within the range of background._
That 16 could mean several things to different pe ple. That could _j 17 mean to within the range of national background, between:
18 what's at sea-level in Florida, versus what's in' Keystone, 19 Colorado. That could mean within-the range'of a local area e 20 so that~the background varies by a few.-tens'of millirem.
-21 That could-vary.. Some people could even contrive that as -
\
22- - that you cannot distinguish residual contamination-from e 23 background, because'it-is within the range'of background.
l.
~
-24 So, maybe;you could elaborate a.little further-on what you 25- . meant by within the range?-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court ReportersJ 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D. C.- 20006 :
L (202) 293-3950
177 1 MR. CEMBER: Yes, I can elaborate. It would be 2 either national or worldwide. Let's'say national. We know 3 that, within the State of Connecticut,-the background varies -
4 by a factor of two, from the seashore up to the northern 5 border. We don't see any big differences in the stillbirths 6 or the cancer or anything in the population of Connecticut.
7 Denver has a background dose rate of approximately twice 8 that of Chicago, and Denver doesn't have any higher 9 increases -- higher rates of cancer or anything else of this 10 nature. And Paris has a background 255 MR per year, and I 11 think the Parisians aren't suffering anymore than Chicagoans 12 or anyone else. And so, when we look at this range of let's 13 say on the order of a hundred millirem a year, that, as-far 14 as I could see, is quite innocuous, and I would not be -- or,,
15 I would not be unhappy or displeased at all if standards 16 were set somewhere within the range of the variability of 17 background because based on human, real human data, not 18 speculative mathematical models and drasoffle.and so on, 19 based on real human data, I would not expect any harmful 20 effects to populations that are controlled by those kinds of 21 standards.
22 MS. STINSoN: Okay. Good. Henry? And then we 23 will come down the line.
24- MR. ROYAL: This microphone is the world's 25' smallest. We heard the term acceptable risk a number of-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud Repoders l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D. C 20006 l
(202) 293-3950
178 1 times. And I don't think that we can determine whether a 2 risk is acceptable or not by its magnitude. The EPA, for 3 example, was talking about 10 to the minus fourth or 10 to 4 the minus sixth as an acceptable risk. Is that official EPA 5 terminology? I suppose it is EPA terminology. But, whether 6 a risk is acceptable or not depends on what the risk to 7 benefit ratio is. There are trivial risks that I personally 8 would not accept if there was no benefit to the activity.
9 So, what we have been talking about, I think, is the 10 magnitude of the risk. We have been trying to find out 11 whether or not we agree about the magnitude of the risk.
12 The acceptability issue, I think, is a whole other area of 13 discussion.
14 An additional comment I would like to make about ,,
15 risk is we seem to have this very narrow view of risk.- All 16 we are talking about is what is the risk from this 17 particular radiation level. We are not talking about what la are the risks if we spend our resources to prevent this 19 radiation level, what are the risks from not having spent 20 the resources to do something else? And I think you have 21 got to look at total risk. You can't just narrowly focus in 22 on what the risk is of the particular thing they have and be 23 discussing.
24 When I-was in college I took a course in ecology.
25 And I believe
- hat society interacts with each other. We ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)'293-3950
179 1 can't-look upon these things as isolated incidents.that 2 don't affect other things in society.
L 3 MS. STINSON: Okay. Susan.
4 MS. HIATT: I think, in responseLto that comment, 5 it is important to recognize that the NRC has some very 6 specific statutory limitations. They can't-really spend 7 their resources on anti-smoking. education. I mean, we are 8 talking about radiation protection here. I agree, you have 9 some valid points there, but I don't think you can start 10 spreading this across societal risks-in general.
11 And also, with regard to within the range of 12 natural background, I don't know if we consider indoor radon 13 hazard to be within the range of natural _ background, but I-14 would note that the EPA, and correct me if my understanding. ,,
15 is wrong, has estimated that indoor radon causes anywhere 16 from five to 20,000 lung cancer deaths a year. So, I don't 17 think we are necessarily talking about.something that is.
18 trivial, even though it is natural and the EPA does 19 recommend testing and remediation_if indoor levels are above 20 four picocuries per liter. So, I think that's something 21 that we need to-recognize -- that natural background isn't 22 necessarily safe.
- 23 MS. STINSoN
- Okay. At this point, we would like 24 to move on to similar discussion, but looking specifically 25 at the implications of establishing a risk goal.
ANN. RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
180 1 Carolyn?
2 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I have another' question. And 3 that is that the difference between risk limit-and rick 4 goals looks semantic to me, in that you draw a line, and say 5 unacceptable, trivial. And, at least, from a linguistic 6 point of view, I would prefer risk limits, because you are 7 saying something is unacceptable. As soon as you tell me 8 something is trivial, I say wait a minute, I decide what is 9 trivial. And so just, from a communications standpoint, you 10 are still drawing the same line somewhere out there and 11 saying it is unacceptable or it is trivial below that. And 12 I am not sure that there is much of a conceptual difference.
13 There is an important linguistic and communicative 14 difference. ,,
l l 15 MR. RICHARDSON: I agree with you,.and I disagree 16 with you. And maybe some words will help here.
17 I think the difference is in the regulatory l 18 approach, not where you get-to. -It is my observation that
( 19 when you use the approach that is used in radiation 20 protection, which is an upper limit above which is 21 unacceptable, and then you use what is called ALARA to get 22 as far as you can below that. You get-to the same place 23 most o the time, or pretty close to the same place that you 24 get in say the_ Super Fund approach, where they have a-risk l-25 objective, or a goal, and occasionally have to make i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
181 1 exceptions, and don't meet'the goal and come up higher'than_-
2 it because of practical --
3 MS. STINSON: You mean a floor or ceiling. kind of 4 distinction?
5 MR. RICHARDSON: It's a floor or ceiling kind of 6 thing. Well, it's not really a floor, in the sense that it 7 is a trivial risk below that. It is an objective that you 8 would like to achieve. I would say that the Super Fund goal 9 is classically expressed, as was mentioned earlier here, as 10 a range of 10 to the minus four to 10 to the minus six. And 11 10 to the minus six and lower is what is called trivial.
12 And 10 to the minus four is acceptable, and it is a goal you 13 want to achieve almost always. So, there is a difference.
14 The difference is that, in one case,-you start at 15 a high level and move, on a site-specific basis, as-far 16 below that level as you can reasonably get. -And it is a 17 cost-benefit decision that you are making when you move 18 down. The goal situation is a different regulatory 19 approach, in which you start with some goal, and then allow 20 exceptions when circumstances force you.to'do it.
I 21 MS. STINSON: Okay. Other comments?.
22 MR. COOL: Let me see if I can take this another 23 step, because what you said, Carolyn, is very interesting.
24 Not only do I think we have a linguistic difference here l
I 25 perhaps in which way you look at it, but let me proffer the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L 'Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
182 1 question of is there a perceptual difference as to whether I 2 am going to allow something up to X or whether I am 3 attempting to drive _something down to Y? And does that work 4 better if I am trying to talk to the' folks who are_ backing 5 up to a particular site that has been there, even if they_ -
6 have been good neighbors for a long period of time? Does 7 one of the other work better, if we assume for a moment, 8 perhaps, for the sake of argument, that we would end up in 9 the exact same spot?
10 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I would ask a slightly 11 different question. Is there a perceptual difference in the 12 regulator's mind? When you say, okay, I know it's right, 13 and I am going to communicate it to the public, but is there 14 a different feel to you, as you're out there regulating-and ,,
15 making that decision? Does it feel different? Do you 16 approach it technologically differently? Do you set 17 different standards? .
18 MR. COOL: For the sake of argument here,__let's 19 let the argument proceed on the assumption that I end up in 20 the exact same place, ro it doesn't matter to me which way I 21 have written it, for the sake of argument.
22 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I wanted to throw it back on 23 you, because we presume that the public -- I mean, there 24 seems to be an' unwritten assumption that the public can't or 25 doesn't understand. And I would rebut that. And so what I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
18 ", .
1 wanted to do was throw it back and say let's presume that it 2 makes a difference for the regulator.
3 MS. STINSON: Mike?
4 MR. WEBER: There is an important distinction I
~
5 think, at least, speaking personally for the regulator, and 6 that is a limit is enforceable. And that means that 7 whatever happens you meet that limit, unless you come in and 8 get an exemption, which throws you into a whole other 9 process. The goal is not enforcement. And, in fact, what-10 is enforceable is how close you get to that goal. Just, 11 speaking personally, it does make a difference to me when I 12 am going out and talking to member of the public,.or even 13 the licensees. And I believe it makes a difference to the 14 licensees, and it might be useful to hear from the people' 15 around the table that are regulated, whether it makes a 16 distinction in their mind.
17 MS. STINSoN: Herman, then Mike, and then we will-18 go around to Dave.
19 MR. CEMBER: We already have such a thing, and 20 this is in support of what Mike Weber just said. We already 21 have models for both of these in Government. The air 22 quality criteria are really goals. We want so many -- we 23 want .03 parts per million of sulphur dioxide in the air.
24 But, that is not enforceable, because that-is what we would 25- like to attain. And then we superimpose on that, when we
'J RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
184 1 license someone, an emission limit, so that.the particular 2 person or factory may not emit more than a certain amount, 3 and we hope that, with the application of those emission 4 limits which we can measure, and_whieb are enforceable,_we 5 hope that, if we actually enforce that, we will attain our 6 goal. So, we already have experience with this, and it 7 seems to me that talking about this is more or less time 8 wasting. Pardon me.
9 MS. STINSON: I think it is good to get the 10 distinctions for other folks too.
11 I am going to go to David, since, David, you 12 haven't had an opportunity to speak before.
13 MR. KRAFT: That's all right. I would just echo 14 also what Michael said a moment ago about the ..
15 enforceability. Because in Illinois, when we were 16 developing standards for the proposed low-level rad waste 17 sites, we were very clear that there was a zero release 18 goal, but a one millirem fence site limit, which was 19 enforceable. That was a regulation.
20 That wasn't my comment though. My comment is the 21 notion of the goal, as it is stated, and as I read it in 22 here, is uncomfortably close to the abortive BRC sets of 23 rules that NRC tried to promulgate before, the notion that l
l 24 the public has, in terms of what was meant by the goal, 25 versus the notion of what the regulator had in mind. You l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-185 1 know, today you are talking about conserving resources,-and 2 therefore, that's why you deem it as " trivial" according,-to 3 use the word here. Whereas, the public's perception, on the 4 BRC front, was that here's the regulatory agency that has 5 been set up to protect the protect the public health and 6 safety, and they consider a certain level of radiation >
7 trivial? You know, that is a very very disconcerting public 8 perception issue. So, even the phrasing and-using of the 9 word goal merely mimics the disastrous process that took 10 place under BRC.
11 MS. STINSON: Thank you for that clarification.
12 We are going to take a few more comr.ents on this. And, keep 13 in mind, we need to get through discussions on the best 14 effort and return to background.
15 Susan, then Dave.
16 MS. HIATT: I guess I was wondering if there might 17 be confusion with the idea of limits and goals. I wonder if 18 the NRC has had any experience with the licensees that maybe 19 have had confusion with this. I think you are right about 20 limits are enforceable. I would be interested in what your 21 experience has been, if any.
22 MS. STINSON: I should go, if you don't mind, 23 Dave, back to Mike. You have been holding a comment?
24 MR. WILLI AMS : Yes, with regard to risk / goal.
25 Like someone said earlier, I think all four of these ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Wroet, N.W., Suite 300 WasNr.gton, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
186 ,
1 objectives can provide protection, and that that is really 2 not a concern. And I think a goal could do the same.
3 I would have to agree with Carolyn. I want you to 4 tell me, as a licensee, what is my limit, and let me be 5 regulated to that, and let me know that when I hit that that 6 I am fined. Don't give me a range at which, after I have 7 hit the limit already I have now got to work within a range.
8 That is very_ disconcerting. My background being an 9 engineer, I don't want to drive across a bridge that has a 10 veight goal on that bridge for trucks.
11 [ Laughter.)
12 MR. WILLIAMS: I want to drive across a bridge 13 that has a weight limit for trucks. And I want to know when 14 I drive across that bridge that I am going to make it to the 15 other side.
16 (Laughter.)
17 MR. CAMERON: I guess that -- I would just like to 18 amplify on the point that Susan made that I think gets to 19 ghat comment too. What has been the perception -- I mean, 20 EPA has the experience of using the risk goal, whereas, we 21 have used the risk limit approach. And I just wondered what 22 the perception was. Does it look like enforceability is lax 23 under that type? Is there a perception that enforceability 24 is lax? I didn't know if you wanted to address that or not?
25 MS. STINSON: Do you want to do that?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
187 1 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I guess it depends-on who 2 you talk to what-their perception is. I.think the 3 perception is-that the EPA risk goal, which corresponds to 4 about three millirems, 10 to the minus four, is-a much lower 5 level of risk than the current NRC risk limit, which is a 6 hundred millirems. But, as to the enforceability of it, I 7 think it is just the other way around, the public 8 perception, as you are suggesting. It is clear that NRC is 9 always meeting that hundred millirem risk limit, and EPA is 10 not always achieving the three millirem goal.
11 I had a question for -- okay. I will pass it to 12 you in a second. I guess it was Mike who said he would 13 prefer to have a limit. And I am not clear what you really 14 meant by that. Because my understanding of the risk limit 15 approach is that it includes the ALAFA prccess, which is a 16 large part of the process of getting down to where you will 17 finally end up to, because you don't generally end up at a 18 hundred millirems, if we use the current number. You end up 19 way below that. And so my question is did you mean the 20 limit, in the sense of the current system, which is the 21 hundred millirem limit, or something like it, plus the ALARA 22 process, which moves you quite a good distance below that, 23 or did you mean a fixed number without ALARA?
24 MR. WILLIAMS: No. I meant in terms of the ALARA 25 process. And I think the key is is that I know, for ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-188 l' instance, for workers,:as long as we-are below the limit, ,
2 then I know that-they]are provided appropriate protection, 3 --and it is not a concern.
Then the issue is, do'I want to go-
-4 beyond that and further reduce their exposure?- And what'is 5 the cost, and what is the benefit of that? So, I have no .
T 6 problem with the ALARA concept like we use it now-in -
7 regulations, but I want a firm limit there too that I- know 8 that once I hit that that I am fine, and'I know that the-9 protection is provided thst is appropriate.-
10 MS. - STINSoN: Pam, did you want to comment' 11 further?
12 MS. RUSSELL: The question'that I-heard was what-13 was the experience working with ' risk goals, . and what- is:
14 -EPA's experience been with that? And. Allen addressed that 15 in a very-. specific way. My ccaments were going to be more 16 generic, based more or less on Super Fund's overall-17 experience with using risk goals in their chemical, as-well 18 as other types of clean-ups. And that is that the risk-19 goal, as used in the context of a process,'which is subject-20 to public comment, and the process is also very much site--
21 specific, so that the risk will be-calculated. And it is
' ~
22 important-to remember here that it-is calculated-to the most 23 exposed individual, not for the -- it might be-one most 24 exposed' individual, or-there might be 5,000 most. exposed 25 individuals. That risk range applies to the most exposed -
ANN RILEY & ~' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
189 1 individual. And it-then becomes part of the whole open.
2 process for making a decision on the clean-up that is 3 subject to public comment. I might also add that, more or 4 less, that that has worked. It does tend to be time-5 consuming, but it does work. The communities generally come 6 up satisfied with that is being done at an individual site.- -
7 MS. STINSON: Okay. Good. That is helpful. Soon-8 we are going to move on to the best effort discussion.
9 Frank, did you want to make a final comment?
10 MR. RESCEK: Yes. I would just'like to support 11 what Mike said, that, at least in the power industry, we go 12 with the risk limit, and then we use ALARA programs to get 13 it ac low below that as we can. But, the concept of a risk 14 goal could be worked together with'a risk limit,-and you. ,,
15 might have something that is a small fraction of the risk 16 limit -- that once you reach that point,-you no longer would 17 continue expending resources, because that point would be 18 solo -- that you would be at a point of diminishing returns.
19 So, you could really combine the two.
20 MS. STINSON: Okay. Good. Thanks.
21 Mike?
22 MR. WEBER: I just wanted to throw out that, you-23 know, we have been doing a lot of talking about the 24 different approaches here, in terms of risk, in terms of 25 dose, in some cases. But, we all have to recognize that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)-293-3950
190
~
1 this is a multi-layered issue. And we hadn't been 2 specifying who the risk is to, who the dose is to. I think 3 there has been an implication that we are talking about the 4 risk to the public; but there are many publics who the risk 5 maybe to. There is also_the risk to workers. And earlier, !
6 we talked briefly about the risk to the environmental, and 7 resources and things like that. It might be helpful, as we 8 proceed in the discussion, that we try to reflect on that, 9 and make certain we are clear in our own minds who we are 10 talking about in terms of the risk. Is the risk to-the 11 maximum fence line person alongside the facility, or the 12 person who is going to move on the site? Or is the-risk to 13 the person who might be exposed during the decommissioning, 14 due to air effluents or liquid effluents? ,,
15 And later on, it might be jumping the gun a little 16 bit,-but one of our discussion issues is in waste management 17 implications. And in there there is a question to.ask --
18 are we transferring the risk from one member of the public 19 to another member of the public in vaste disposal?
20 MS. STINSON: Thank you, Mike. I think we want to 21 fold that. This is a very important topic. We want to hold 22 that kind of discussion regarding who is at risk to each of 23 the four approaches. So, I am going to move on now to best 24 effort, or best available technology, call it what you like, 25 as an objective. Can you give us some feedback on how you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1911 1 see this approach protecting human health and the 2' environment? Advantages and disadvantages 1for that.
3 protection?
4 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: My question is where is the 5 locus of expertise? And'it appears to me that,'for risk 6 limit and risk goal, it is with the regulator, and with best 7 available control technologies or best effort, in the locus 8 of expertise. Who decides? How do you know it is the best 9 resides then with the regulated?
10 MR. LESNICK: Is that good or bad?
11 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: For public health, safety and 12 welfare? I guess I would argue that it is probably-betto:
13 for technical capabilities, costs and other implementation 14 considerations, and less desirable for protection of human 15 health and environment.
16 MS. STINSON: Okay. . Good. Thanks.
17 Mike?
18 MR. WILLIAMS: I guess I would like to agree with 19 that and state it in a little bit different way. I.am also 20 the member of the public myself, as is my family. And I 21 really don't want you to come back to me and say well 22 company X, Y, Z, down here on the end of the corner did 23 their best, gave it their best effort. So, put a smile on 24 your face and keep going. The connotation of best effort, 25 although I understand what you mean in the way you have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, _ D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-1 192 1 couched it in terms of regulatory concern, to me, saying 2 best effort, and then saying that you have appropriately 3 protected the health and the environment, they are-not 4 necessarily saying the same thing. If you say appropriate 5 protection is provided, and now I want you'to ma'ke a-best 6 effort to get as far below that as you can, then I have a 7 problem with that, but I call that ALARA, I don't call 1 that 8 best effort. So, maybe we are dealing semantics here.-
9 MS. STINSON: Okay. Good. Thanks.
10 David?
11 MR. KRAFT: I think the semantics are an important 12 issue, particularly to that population of the public called 13 lawyers. And I find this the most untenable of the four 14 propositions for'a whole slew of reasons,nin terms of ,
15 protecting the public. You know, as difficult as it may be 16 to arrive at what is a limit and what is a-goal, I would-17 love to hear the definition of best. And lawyers will have 18 a field day for that sort of thing. I think the only one 19 who will get any benefit from this category are the lawyers, 20 because you are going to be in court forever, and you are-21 not going to get anything decommissioned. So, those, I 22 think, are two paramount objections against this particular 23 tact.
24 MS. STINSON: Thank you. Michael?
25 MR. WEBER: I think almost the prototype that we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street. N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
193 1 had in mind in writing the issues paper for best effort is-2 something akin to what EPA has done, and I think with some 3 success in the clean water programs =and' clean air programs 4 that will be a new initiatives -- where the regulatory 5 agencies, based on this kind of input, input, wr'itten 6 comments, what have you, goes through a public process to 7 decide what best effort is, and then establishes that by 8 rule, saying that, regardless of what risk is associated 9 with the app?ication of best effort, you apply that best 10 effort approate, and when you are done, you are done. And 11 the residual dose might be 140 millirem per year, or it 12 might be .01 millirem per year. There is almost an 13 implication that a best effort would somehow get you to a 14 level that was well above dose limit approach or a goal ,.
15 approach. And I don't think that is necessarily the case.
16 It might be helpful if somebody from EPA would elaborate on 17 what the agency's experience has been in those other areas.
18 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I can't give an 19 oncyclopedia of such cases. But, in general, the approach 20 has been used when the Congressional directive was zero.
21 And it clearly wasn't achievable. And so what the agency 22 did was survey the available technologies, as Mike pointed 23 out, and require that the best reasonably usable technology 24 be used. And one of the difficulties, frankly, with this 25 approach is that it has been applied to practices which are l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
194 1- being carried on on a continuing _ basis.- It is a control:
2 technology application to existing-plants. And so you have 3 the opportunity to upgrade it from time to time when it 4 becomes appropriate to do so.
5 MS. STINSON: Jack, and then Susan.
6 MR. HONEY: A comment or a question-back-to EPA, 7 Aren't there also some guidelines with .espect to cost 8 effectiveness when BET is employed or when it is not, using 9 that as some criteria, also when-one-should employ another 10 process to reduce some emissions?
11 MR. RICHARDSON: Don't quote me on-this, but, yes, 12 cost has to be considered. Because, clearly, anything is 13 achievable if you put enough effort into it. And so 14 reasonableness of cost had to be considered.
I wouldn't ..
15 equate that with cost effectiveness necessarily.
16 MS. STINSON: Susan?
17 MS. HIATT: Is my understanding correct that EPA 18 actually codifies a particular technology as being best 19 available -- that it is actually written into~the 20 regulations in 40 CFR? I guess my concern about that would 21 be, since technology changes, is that going to give you 22 enough flexibility? I think, if the NRC were to take this 23 approach, it might be better to specify a best available 24 technology in 10 CFR, and then use a regulatory guide which-25 can be revised more easily to actually specify particular ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 ,
195 1 technologies.
2 MR. WEBER: I can give you an example of where 3 that has been done. Mixed waste was raised by an observer 4 previously as an area that somehow has to be woven'into this
- 5 discussion. For mixed waste, for example, in the RCRA 6 program, with respect to land disposal restrictionsLfor 7 hazardous waste, EPA has specified prescribed technologies 8 that have to be applied to certain mixed wastes before those 9 wastes can be disposed of. One example is for liquid high 10 !< vel waste, that waste has to be vitrified. So, EPA has 11 said, if you vitrify that waste, then that waste is 12 acceptable for land disposal. If you do anything other than-13 that, that doesn't cut it, unless-you come in and request 14 the administrator to specifically approve that alternate- ..
15 approach. So, they have established that in 40 CFR 268 in 16 that case.
17 MS. STINSON: One more comment. Frank?
18 MR. RESCEK: It seems to me that the best 19 technology approach might better apply in an area where 20 technology is a limiting factor in doing something. Here in 21 decommissioning technology is really not a limit factor at L 22 all. We have the technology to see minute quantities of 23 radioactivity down to extremely low levels, barely 24 measurable levels. We have the technology to bulldoze 25 buildings down, to dig up the ground, and do all of those l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. - C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
196 1 things. And so all of that technology exists. And if you 2 really look at a best effort approach, where do you stop?
3 Do you just wash the walls, or do you scabble the walls, or 4 do you rip the building out? So, again, I just don't think 5 that best technology applies in a situation where the 6 technology is capable of doing anything.
7 MS. STINSON: Good. Okay. With that comment, we 8 would like to move on to a similar discussion for roturn to 9 background. Can you give us a sense of some of the 10 strengths and weaknesses of this approach for protection of 11 human health and the environment?
12 Okay. Susan?
13 MS. HIATT: I think one strength that we have is 14 that it would probably be the most publicly acceptable of ,,
15 all of the options. Even though background may not be safe, 16 I don't think anyone would propose that we clean up the 17 Redding Prong. So, I think, if you take it back to where it 18 was before the licensed activities-occurred, I don't see how 19 anyone could really have a complaint that it wasn't done 20 right, or that it was still a hazard, or at least a man-21 made hazard.
22 MS. STINSON: Okay. Robert?
23 MR. OWEN: That's certainly highly desirable. And 24 to whatever extent that can be achieved, it certainly should 25 nove in that direction, even for ALARA. One of the problems ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950-
197 1 with that is that when you have a fixed versus removable 2 contamination, certainly you can possibly remove all of the 3 removable contamination. But, as far as the faxed 4 contamination is concerned, it may become very. difficult to 5 do that, as someone alluded to -- actually tear down th6 6 entire building, or destroy the entire facility, which is 7 not what you are trying to achieve, if you are trying to 8 actually establish this for unrestricted use, meaning, 9 solneone is going to use it after you leave, unless you want 10 to make a vacant parking lot out of it.
11 We actually did tear down an antire building in 12 Cincinnati, Ohio, for this very reason, to get it down.
13 But, that's not -- that was done under the emergency super 14 fund, and that is not always feasible. So, that is 15 certainly a drawback to saying we have to go back to a 16 background situation. That is desirable, but not always 17 achievable.
18 MS. STINSON: Jack, and-then Carolyn.
19 MR. IloNEY: Well, I think that there are some 20 people who might object to spending money, going all the way 21 back to background, when it is not clear that that is an 22 advantage to them. It might be like the shareholders of a 23 company, community members who are going to see a facility 24 close because they have overspent. But, also, I don't think 25 there is any real benefit for any protection of human health l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
! Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
198 1 and the environment to decontaminate or decommission in this 2 range, noise level, if you will, of natural background. So, 3 going all the way back to background may or may not be 4 desirable. In some cases, it may in fact be impossible. I 5 can relate that to our site, which began operation some 30 6 years ago. We are not quite sure exactly what background 7 was. There is a fair amount of variability in our area.
8 So, I don't see that necessarily being of great protection 9 to the human health and environment.
10 MS. STINSON: Susan? I'm sorry. Carolyn?
11 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I wanted to ask Frank and 12 maybe Jack whether there is an advantage to return to 13 background from a standpoint of liability?
14 MS. STINSON: Anybody want to comment on that? .
15 MR. WILLIAMS: I will comment on that, and I will 16 give you a comment from Sheldon Trubage, a lawyer. With 17 regard to liability, basically, to paraphrase what Sheldon 18 said one time, don't justify doing anything on the basis of 19 preventing potential litigation. Anybody can sue anytime at 20 anyplace. So, don't vaste resources "in an effort to 21 protect yourself from potential litigation," not when you 22 are already down within a range in which you are providing 23 reasonable protection and reasonable assurance, and in 24 compliance with laws and regulations. That would be my 25 comment.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washingten, D. C. 20006 (209) potaosn
- .. .. . ._ - .- = ..
h 199 i i
1 MS. STINSON: Al?
2 MR. JOHSON: With taspect to decommissioning a :
i 3 si ack,to background radiation levels. It is going to
.i 4 be important, if you do decide to do something like that to. ;
5 lookatitstatistically,ifit-isdiscernablebrom 6 background. And one of the things that I would like to' 7 point out is that decommissioning projects have-been going i
8 on for a long time on a case-by-case basis. I don't luu)w if- ,
f 9 I can make this a comment or a proposed question.- But, when-10 you look at the limits that were established in Reg-Guide !
11 . 8 6, along back when I was still sucking on a lollipop ,
12 someplace, there are -- and at that time, there was 13 established a set of limits below which,~1f you submitted a 14 decommissioning plan, if you were able to say that you'could. _ -
15 meet those limits, that the decommissioning plan.supposedlyL 16 would go through with less regulatory review than if.you 1;
17 proposed limits that were above what was established in i
18 Regulatory Guide 1.86. ,
19 I guess my point-is primarily that, if you look at- ,
20 what those limits are, which basically were a thousand DPM, 21 170 square, for removal, with another limit for a 5,000.DPM, 22 170 square, for an average are no greater than one-square 23 meter -- three times the-level, if it wasn't exceeded in 24 that area. And thero is a lot more. If-you look at the 25 different isotopes, and even there, there were categories ANN RILEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C.= 20006
-(202) 293-3950 -
l
'200 1 established for typical beta, gamma emitters, as well'as -
1 1
2 alpha emitters. I an here to tell you that -- we have been - j 3- involved with,-those limits are very close to what the ,
4 technology today can discern from what is background. '
5 And-I will give you a case in put. We are-6 involver2 in the decommissioning of the Fort St. _Vrain 7 Nuclear _ Power Plant, the first commercial nuclear reactor - j 8 - the first reactor to go under commercial' decommissioning.
9 And, in some places -- it is outside of Denver, Colorado. 5 10 The background radiation-levels-outside are much-higher than .
11 inside. As a matter of fact, we are going to be 12 decontaminating wall surfaces, floor surfaces in buildings 13 that actually have -- inside buildings in which the-14 background is actually less than it is outside. So, In ,, ,
15 fact, by doing the decommissioning and decontamination, we i
16 are actually increasing the exposure or dose to the general 17 public by doing that.-- There is certainly no reason not to 18 do the decommissioning.
l 19 So, in terms of a: background, I really do. believe '
20 that limits ought to be set. I think the limits that are j l . .
- 21 set and have been used in the past, the 1.86 limits, which-
- 22 are a thousand and~5,000, regardless of the basis that-was
l L 23- developed -- and I believe, at that time,-it was more. geared toward what was capable of being met by instrumentation-at 24 25 that time, as opposed to being a risk-based regulatory ANN RlLEY &; ASSOCIATES, Ltd.- [
Court Reporters
- 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite: 300 Washington,-' D.. C. 20006 -
(202); 293-3950; ;
l i
201 1 guide. That is about -- the technology has not changed that 2 much since that document came out, such that you could do a 3 much better job, at least in terms of the surface limits.
4 So, I would say that, in terms of being able to affect 5 things above background, or returning things to background, 6 in a lot of cases, and if you look at those test cases that 7 Chip had brought up, a lot of the times when they refer to 8 Reg Guide 1.86 as being the limits used to release the 9 facility, those are very close to background, in what is 10 distinguishable by the technology in terms of the 11 instrumentation. It may not, and it is definitely not the 12 same as the definition of you saying I want to bring it to 13 background -- and that is something that is defined as the 14 amount of radioactive material that naturally occurs on_the ..
15 facility.
16 MS. STINSON: Okay.
17 MR. IIOLDEN A statement and a question. It seems 18 that, in those instances where there would be attempts to 19 restore areas back to the previous background, it may be 20 difficult in some areas where it definitely is not 21 applicable probably. But, isn't that a -- you put these 22 places back as they were prior to the facility use. As I 23 indicated a while ago, there was some benefit to these 24 people utilizing these areas. In some areas they should'be 25 returned to their natural state, regardless of cost. That ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Rep 0ders 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 '
(202) 293-3950
l 1
202 1 is just my position -- the position of the people I would 2 represent. And that would probably be the response I would I
3 get.
4 My question is what in the -- is the assumption or 5 presumption that the area that has high background in these 6 particular areas -- is there the assumption nor presumption 7 that this may have been precipitated by activity -- by the 8 activities of these facilities?
9 MS. STINSON: Okay. Good question. There are two 10 other cards up. We want to wind down this discussion pretty 11 soon so that we can get to some more specific examination of 12 ( Jh of these approaches, vis-a-vis populations, levels, and 13 the final question is the establishment of these same 14 standards for natural systems. ..
15 David.
16 MR. KRAFT: Just a comment I guess on the paradox 17 that Al created a moment ago. Maybe what is implicit in 18 this notion of background could more hecurately be described 19 as background plus. Because I don't think we go around 20 designing buildings to add to their -- the exposure that a 21 person would normally have. And I think that that's the 22 situation really that you are talking about in your case 23 there. My comment though, to get back to the specific of 24 this facet, is that it seems to satisfy, beyond a doubt, two
! 25 of the criteria that were bandied about earlier. We l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950-
,. __ _ _ . . . _ _ . ___.___.___..m . - - . . _ . - . _ _ _ -.
203' 1 definitely will get across this bridge if this were the 2 standard. So, I think that's an assurance to the public 3 that is important.
4 But, secondly, in terms of the driving nature of 5 technology. We'have heard comments today saying certainly- .
6 detectability is not the problem, and, to_a large extent, J 7 and those of you who have expertise can correct me, it seems 8 like the actual technology of ripping things apart and 9 moving it around does not also seem to be beyond our ]
10 capabilities at this point. So, it does:not seem to:be a >
11 technologically limiting factor here.
12 I do hear the issue of cost, which. bleeds into an ,
t 13 earlier point as to the difference amongst the kind of 14 sites. I am hearing this cost to society issue largely.from ,
15 what I -- if I have your affiliations correct, medical 16 community people, our radiopharmaceutical people, an 17 entirely diffarent kind of argument can-be made logically 18 for nuclear utility people. And you come up with a-19 surprisingly different conclusion. So, in terms of.the cost
- 20 to society, I get a little uncomfortablu when that kind of 21 application might be overlaid to this.particular choice.
22 Without getting into the details, let me just 23 leave it at that. So, I think we have a choice-here that-24 satisfies two of the important: criteria already mentioned.
25 The notion of cost, again, gets back to the notion of-to ANN - RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
_ Court Reporters ._
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite -300
. Washington, D. C. 20006 e -
(202) 293-39505 ,[
204 1 whom? And I gseas we will discuss that at a later time.
2 MS. STINSON: Jack, a final comment?
3 MR. HONEY: I would just mention that we seem to 4 be accepting operational limits that all of us are tied to 5 as being acceptable, perhaps safe. I wonder if we might 6 take those and --
7 MS. STINSON: Can you use your microphone, please?
8 MR. HONEY: If you might take those into 9 consideration when we are talking about decommissioning 10 limits. The other thing is when you are talking about going 11 back to background, there are some of us who would suggest 12 that it will bring about some unnecessary exposure to people 13 that are involved in that D&D operation, going from some 14 level all the way to background. And, further, it might ,,
15 well, ineffectively uos low-level radioactive waste disposal 16 space which, in current day, is at a premium.
17 MS. STINSON: Great. Frank, before vou make your 18 comment, I would like to try to take us to a more general 19 question. And that is, we have talked a little bit about 20 different levels for protection of human health, and we even 21 had the recommendation that a level be established within 22 the range of background radiation. For any of these 23 app.uaches, does anybody have any specific comments or 24 recommendations back to NRC and EPA regarding the level --
25 appropriate level?
l ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
._ Washington, D. C 20006 (202) 293 3950-
L 205 1 Yes, Herman?
2 MR. CEMBERt Without an appropriate level, but in '
3 regard to the return for background -- return to. background, 4 I presume this means that, if we would have some 5 contaminated soil, it would have to be scooped up and 6 transported somewhere. I hope that the NRC or EPA, whoever ;
7 is making these final rules, would consider the possible 8 transport accidents, and other accidents involved-in 9 scooping this up and operating bulldozers, and digging holes. '
10 in the low-level waste burial site, et cetera, and compare 11 the number of people injured and possibly, probably killed 12 in those kinds of accidents, relative to the calculated ,
13 number of deaths prevented by decontaminating down to 14 background levels. I think that is~a very important ,,
15 question.
16 MS. STINSON: Okay. Good. Thanks.
17 Frank?
18 MR. RESCEK: I just wanted to add that we seem to 19 be talking about return to background as a definable 20 quantity that can be regulated. And I think a few people 21 have said that and alluded to that it isn't. And-I just 22 wanted to add to that that you can't regulate a return to 23 background in very easy, definable, clear terms that 24 licensees can meet. What is return to background? It means 25 that you are going to have to specify the instrumentation ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters !
-1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 -
(202) 293 3950:
l 206 1 used. How are you going to depict what instrument you are 2 going to use? Are you going to pick your instrument based 3 on what is the most sensitive? Then you have limitations 4 there because you can always take soil samples or other 5 samples to the lab and use it on certain instrumentation.
6 Then you have to decide how long are you going to 1
7 count it? Are you going to count it for 10 minutes, for 10 8 hours, for 10 days? You can always get to lower and lower 9 nlmbers closer to background in environmental type of 10 instrumentation. If you take the micro R meter out here, 11 you get six, seven, eight micro R per hour. You can only 12 see about one or two above that. One micro R per hour is 13 about nine millirem n year. So, pick your instrument.
14 And do you pick your instrument based on risk? Or ,
15 how do you pick your instrument? And so I think it leaves 16 the regulators in an dilemma. And it certainly leaves the 17 licenses in a dilemma on knowing what does the return to 18 background really mean and how do you then plan for 19 achieving that?
20 MS. STINSON: Any other comments?
21 (No response.)
22 MS. STINSON: Any comments on any of the other 23 subquestions under A?
24 (No response.)
25 MR. RICHARDSON: This is not a comment. This is a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 207 l l
1 request before a comment.
2 I think there are two key questions in the first 3 dashed item under the first bullet. How will populations !
4 and individuals be protected, and the question of timeframe 5 and location. And the second one is -- in the second bullet 6 -- what levels of health protection should be sought? I 7 hope we are going to address those specifically?
8 MS. STINSON: Let's look at the first bullet 9 first, and just follow Allen's suggestion. Any specific 10 comments anyone wants to offer?
11 MR. LESNICK: Again, this is an opportunity to put 12 yourselves in the shoes of the regulator down here. They 13 have got to be thinking about -- I think a number of people 14 raised this -- who are we trying to protect? Under what ,,
15 circumstances? There are a number of populations. What 16 kind of timeframes? These are the kinds of things they have.
17 got to come up with in this rulemaking.
18 Again, we are asking people to put themselves in 19 the shoes of the regulators here. They have got to be 20 asking themselves -- and this came up this morning -- who 21 are we trying to protect? Is it a range of different kinds 22 of individuals under different circumstances? What kind of 23 timeframe? Thie is the kind of guidance we want to gather 24 right now.
25 MR. DORUFF: One of the advantages I think to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
208 1 using a risk limit standard is that you can use the standard 2 and then use whatever flexible methods you can determine are 3 useful in determining whether or not you are reaching the 4 standard -- use a code, use some sort of methodology that !
5 can utilize all of the different variables that are very 6 important in specific site characteristics. And one of the 7 variables could be who is the person that is most likely to 8 receive this does, or who is the most vulnerable -- the most 9 immediately available in the pathway for any airborne or 10 contamination into the water. So, I think, if you want to 11 try and target the most vulnerable individual in the 12 population, that can be done using a code or some 13 methodology to determine whether or not you are in 14 compliance with the standard. ..
15 MR. KRAFT: I guess my comment sort of pursues 16 that. Ic gets back to where Mike left off earlier. Take, 17 for example, the situation that Jack described a moment ago, 18 that theoretically there are sites out there that cannot go 19 back to whatever background might be decided. How do you 20 juxtapose that upon what we already know in terms of your 21 definition, which says unrestricted use, which conceivably 22 means very suspectable populations. You know, could this 23 site be used for a clinic that treats immune deficiencies, 24 or for day care centers? Again, very vulnerable 25 populations, based on any other kind of criteria, other than ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 <
__ _ _ . _ (202) 293:3950
209 1 returning to the background? I would suggest not. I think 2 that is why it argues toward that level of surety, in terms 3 of going to the background. You can then really say we have 4 looked at these various populations, whether you weight them ,
5 or not that this will result in less harm. -
6 MS. STINSoN: Other comments? Mike?
7 MR. WILLIAMS: To kind of follow along with what 8 Mark said. I think that, if you look at previcus programs 9 for assessing done to the population, where we looked at the 10 maximum 1y exposed individual, or the fence post cow, or 11 whatever correlation you want to use there. When we are 12 talking about this, if we look at a risk limit, then I think 13 that's where you need the flexibility to assess the 14 population and the environment in the local area. So that, ,,
15 if you are in a place where there are wide open spaces and 16 nobody lives within 500 miles of it, you would treat that 17 different, rather than assuming that say your property 18 boundary is only a hundred feet away, but nobody lives 19 within 500 miles. You would look at that differently than 20 you would look at somoplace here in downtown Chicago. And I 21 would hope that's where the flexibility comes in.
22 I think that you have to look at what I guess ICRP 23 and NCRP have termed from time to time, the critical group.
24 And I think that those are important considerations, not 25 just averaging ovos he entire population, as someone else ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
210 1 suggested they didn't like, and not just picking what would 2 be the maximum hypothetical dose to and individua4, if they 3 resided with a certain point. So, I think somewhere you 4 have to have a balance. I think that has -- the balance has 5 to be based on what are the risks and what are the costs and 6 benefits.
7 MS. STINSON: One or two more comments.
8 Richard?
9 MR. ALLEN: In NRC's definition of 10 decommissioning, a few of the highlighted words were 11 unrestricted use. And I think the position I would like to 12 take is we may not always get to that end point, and we may 13 wind up wit: situations where there are restrictions on 14 uses. Before we all dismiss that as abrorrent, let's look .,
15 to where EPA is going with -- and I am bringing up radon 16 again. But, there are going to be areas of the country that 17 EPA will be targeting as high potential for radon. And I 18 would not be surprised to see the day come then cortain 19 structures of various configurations cannot be bu!1t in 20 those areas. Now, this is certainly not something that 21 comes from an NRC regulatory point of view, but it is from 22 the radiation protection point of view. And that is I think 23 we will get to the point some day when we recognize that you 24 cannot build any structure in any area, because of radiation 25 protection considerations. So, I think we are coming to the ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters i 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
a I
211 1 point relatively soon where there will ba precedent for 2 this sort of thing,-and I don't think we should necessarily 3 bound ourselves to complete unrestricted use in every case.
4 MS. STINSON: Don?
5 MR. COOLt I would like to go back to what Mike 6 was saying about selecting the population or the individual.
7 He suggestod ICRP's critical group as the way to define that 8 maximum exposure. And I would sort of like to throw out the 9 philosophical question that we touched on once or twice, 10 which is the difference between an average and a maximum.
11 Because the ICRP definition of a critical group is, in fact, 12 an average. It is an average over the subset of individuals 13 likely to be the maximum exposure. And that gets into the 14 question, well, are we talking about a family on the site, ,
15 or are we talking about the residents of the town nearby?
16 And so, while some part of me wants to say yes, 17 internationally, here we have this wonderful concept known 18 as a critical group, but we have already expressed around 19 the table today that if we start to talk'about averaging, 20 and I am talking about the person who lives next door, say, 21 to the Bird Avenue site, versus the people who live down the 22 street or the next block. That doesn't feel so good then.
23 How would you coe the averaging? What kind of boundary 24 might be put, if you were to use a concept like the critical 25 group?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 -
n ,
i-212' 1 MR. WILLIAMS: I think what you have to do is the-2 analysis of the population that is in that vicinity. And, 3 if indeed, it is a_widely-distr'ibuted population, then the 4 process becomes much'more difficult. But, you have to I~
5 guess reduce your radius, so to speak, around the boundaries.
6 of the facility. But, the key would'be is that -- that's 7 where you bet into site-specific evaluations, and you look-8 at that site and you say what.is.the potentia 11 maximum 1y 9 exposed group. And I guess the keyfto that also is 10 reasonableness.
11 I don't believe it is reasonable to make the-12 assumption that over every facility it-is going to be-13 decommissioned that a-day care center is going to~be-built 14 there, and you are only going to have infants there,.and 15 they are going to reside there 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> afday,-1seven days.a 16 week. Likewise, I don't think it is reasonable to assume 17 that every facility is going to be_ completely _ raised to 18 green grass,-and nobody is ever going to get within-'10 miles 19 of it. So, I think somewhere in between you have got'to 20 make some reasonable assumptions based on the vicinity, the 21 community, what has happened in_that state and that local 22 region. And I realize that is difficult. -You can't project 23 how many people are going to live there1 5,000 years from 24 now.
25 MR. RICHARDSON I would like to assume that the ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
_Coud Repoders 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.. C. 20006
-_(202)_293-3950-
- - . - . - - . - . ~ _
I I
213 q 1 problem that Don and Mike were disem.afng has been solved in l
)
2 some satisfactory way,_and raise some other questions that j 3 are problems I think with the concept of limiting individual 4 risk as the sole criteria.
5 Let me give two examples of where I see there are 6 problems. And they are both related the affects in large 7 populations. If you have a very short-lived isotope, that 8 maximum individual risk may occur to one individual one ,
9 year, and then never happen again. If you have a long-10 lived isotope, that same level of risk may occur to millions.
11 of people over tens of thousands of-years. Should we treat .
12 those cases differently even though the are the same 3 13 individual risk? That is the first problem.
And the second problem is somewhat related, but 14 ,,
15 not exactly the same. And that is, even if we are meeting 16 the level, the required agreed upon level of individual risk ;
17 to the maximum-exposed individual, what about all of the ,
18 rest of the population that is exposed at lower levels?
19 Now, that rest of the population can range from-zero, if you-are out in the desert, an'd there is only one person living
- 20 21 nearby, to huge populations -- that can be cities-over many I
i 22- thousands of years. It's what we call the collective dose 23 of population. exposure. -How should that be treated in 24 arriving at standards? ,
25 So, I pose two questions here.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, . N.W., Suite 300 .
o Washington, D. C. 20006 L
a .. - - .= .. -
1(202):293-3950
214 1 MS. STINSON: You can answer, and then we're going 2 to take about two more minutes of comments before we takts 3 our afternoon break. David?
4 MR. KRAFT: Well, actually, it was just a-comment 5 previous in terms of time frame. Those of you who are from 6 the Chicago area know that the community of Chamburg didn't 7 much exist 15 years ago, and now there's 70,000 people out 8 there, and it's suddenly prhe territory. It's a very short 9 time span in geological terms, so I think this notion of 10 time frame is very critical in terms of population. We've 11 demonstrated it. Maybe it's a way of getting rid of strip 12 mall, though. I don't know.
13 MS. STINSON: Carol?
14 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: It seems to me that you can't ..
15 consider population isolated from pathway from time frame ,
16 and from the hazard or what radionucleides are present. I 17 understand that EPA is in big trouble in Ohio over not 18 having considered pathways for an incinerator and having 19 missed the cows, I guess. So, I would just suggest that 20 whether we're talking about airborne or waterborne and over 21 what kind of time frame will at.'fect-population and to 22 consider any of them in isolation is inadequate.
23 MS. STINSON: Mike?
24 MR. WEBER: Earlier in the discussion in this 25 cross cutting issue, we mentioned ALARA and how some people i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950
215 1 would have risk limits set and them apply AIARA below that.
2 I'd like to get back to what Alan was bringing up, and that 3 is a collective dose or population dose. Traditionally, 4 AIARA, as the concept has been applied in terms of a 5 population does, and yet to uany people, when you look at a 6 decommissioning project, you say well, it's really not 7 appropriate to look at population dose, because the exposed 8 population that might move on to a site after the site has 9 been decommissioned is maybe a family through generations or 10 multiple people moving on to that site.
11 To think of it in terms of the conventional 12 population dose, exposure really doesn't ring true. Are 13 there particular views on that subject? Should we look at a 14 population dose? Should we look at a collective dose to all,,
15 members of the public that would be exposed because we have 16 an industry that's being decommissioned? liow should the NRC 17 and EPA consider population dose in the rule makings?
18 Should it be dealt with generically or would you see a 19 process to be put in place to address population dose? I 20 know you want to wrap this conversation up, but we can spend 21 probably a week on that subject. I'd like, maybe not in the 22 next couple of minutes, but if you can think about that a 23 little bit, and then ccLe back to that and some of the other 24 cross cutting i=isues discussions, it would be helpful.
25 MS. STINSoN: Does anybody have a direct response?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 -l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l 216 1 MR. CEMBER: Yes. As David pointed out, Chamburg 2 -- I don't know if it's the last 15 years, but towns come 3 and then they become ghost towns when the ore runs out or 4 when the oil runs out, and it seems to ne that population is 5 a pretty variable kind of a thing, and I don't see, if-6 you're going to make a rule or a regulation, it seems to be 7 pretty difficult to be able to factor in the demographics of 8 a shifting population. I would guess that individual dose 9 or average dose to a small -- the average dose to a 10 population that you really expect to be around there in the 11 immediate future would be the ones to consider as the 12 criterion for the rule rather than some demographic 13 variable.
14 MS. STINSON: Okay, good. Frank? ,,
15 MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to comment on both points.-
16 The first point that Ellen made about should we treat short-17 lived isotopes differently from long-lived isotopes.- I 18 think under the EPA risk goal, which would equate with a few 19 milirem, that that's a 70-year year-in, year-out dose, so 20 there, clearly, I think, if you were under that type of 21 regulation, you would treat those short-lived and long-22 lived isotopes differently because t.he short-lived ones, you 23 may allow a much higher number in the early years, but over 24 the seven year duration, the seven year risk is going to 25 come in.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
i 217 1 To the second issue of the -- but you might treat i
2 them the same under a risk limit basis, I might add. The 3 second issue on the collective dose, I was going to say what 4 Herman said about the demographics, that you can't predict 1
5 what the demographics are going to'be, so how do'you reall/ I 6 calculate a collective future dose. There's a second 7 element to that, and that is that the dosimetry is so off 8 that you don't have a good handle on what the dosimetry is 9 along with the demographics, so you have two big unknowns 10 that really limit your ability to try to project and 11 establish some collective does value. So, it makes it 12 inherently difficult.
13 MR. RICHARDSON: I agree with a lot of what you've 14 said, Frank, but it raises a fundamental problem with the 15 risk limit approach, because the risk limit approach has two 16 key elements, the first is the limit and the second is the 17 ALARA process. If you can't calculate the population dose, 18 there's no ALARA.
19 MS. STINSON: Go ahead, Mike.
20 MR. WILLIAMS: I would just nay that I think you 21 ought to limit the risk, as far as that goes, to the 22 individual. If you make an annual individual risk limit, 23 you base your risk limit on that annual risk, then you're 24 basing it on the population that's in the vicinity that you 25 do know right now, and you're not worrying about the future i
i
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l _
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
218 1 population. If you're controlling annual individual risk, 2 then which individual lives there, you don't know the exact 3 person, but it doesn't matter. You're controlling that risk 4 of whatever individual is there.
5 Also, if you recall, ICRP and NCRP have both put 6 some strong cautionary words in about using collective dose, 7 and I just think, you know, populations adon't get cancer, 8 individuals get cancer," and populations don't die, 9 individuals die. I think if you can keep it on an 10 individual basis, you'll be much better off.
11 MR. RESCEK Let me add-to that, that ALARA does 12 apply. It applies to the demographics of the small ;
13 population that you can project that's going to be in and 14 around the site that's decommissioned. You're right that ,,
15 you might not have an entirely complete ALARA cost benefit 16 if you don't know the total collective exposure, but the 17 controls that you put in for the immediate site and the 18 people that might access that site certainly, I think, keeps 19 you within the bounds of protecting the neighbors, the 20 community, and society.
21 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, the reason I raised this 22 point is because I think it's a fundamental difficulty with 23 the ALARA approach, the risk limit approach that we have to 24 face. If you do the exercise, and I'm sure many of you may 26 have done it, and looked to see how much collective dose ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
219 1 there is, even in the local population that you just talked 2 about, the people who will live on the site, you'll find 3 it's very small. It will never lead to any reduction of the 4 dose below the actual limit itself, so, the limit becomes 5 the cleanup number, and there really is no operation of 6 ALARA in practical situations.
7 MS. STINSON: Robert, can you give us a final 8 comment here?
9 MR. HOLDEN The diecussion reminds me of 10 something I've heard about where a nuclear power plant had 11 some dry storage close to its borders, and there was an 12 outcry of the county people because it abutted their 13 jurisdiction. What the utility did was pull back and move 14 some of the dry storage areas to another part of the ,,
15 facility which abutted the Indian reservation. So, you 16 know, the problem was gone in their minds and in the minds 17 of the public out there.
18 Just because an area is not inhabited does not 19 mean that this area is not culturally sensitive to many 20 people. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that runoff 21 of water and airborne carrying radiation contamination can 22 affect culturally sensitive areas. Not only that, but there 23 are implications of water rights responsibilities by federal 24 agencies here and our management protection of resources by <
25 federal agencies, federal water rights. There's no such ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Cireet, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-s 220 1 thing as use it or lose it if people have water rights and 2 they don't use it, and they want to use it in the ' future, ,
3 they are entitled to that amount, whatever amount has been l 4 allocated in many instances. So, this has to be taken into 5 consideration. .
6 MS. STINSON: And this leads us directly into i
7 discussion of the last bullet in the Section A discussion 8 about the application of a set of standards separate for ,
9 natural systems, and we heard a little bit in the-opening-10 comments. A couple of comments were offered. Anything 11 anyone would like to add at this point?
12 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: Yes. Could we have a break ,
13 before we talk about it?
14 MO. STINSoN: We wanted to try to. finish this ..
15 section up because we do have a full afternoon.to spend.yet 16 on technical capabilities. Let me say that we can try to _ J 17 encapsulate it now and if more time is needed, we certainly.
18 will spend it. Mary?
19 MS. SINCLAIR: No, I don't think we should have 20 separate standards at all because we have to consider the-21 world is an ecosystem, and everyplace that you have in an 22 area, that whole area is an ecosystem because the animals ,
2 'J and plants and water and soil as a part of the resources 24 that we have to protect. So, it's not just the affect cn1 .,
25 the limited life of individuals, but the long term resources ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. ,
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.- C. 20006 '
(202) 293-3950-
221 1 that are part of that ecosystem that we should protect. So, 2 there is tra possibility of thinking well, because this is 3 more of an isolated area, we don't need to have the same 4 standards, we should protect the ecosystems. We've got to 5 protect thn resources.
6 MS. STINSoN: David?
7 MR. KRAFI The discussion of nature and 8 ecosystems is interesting. It reminds me of the joka or the 9 story that the reason that Congress doesn't do much about 10 forests is because the owls don't vote and the bears don't 11 Write letters, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those 12 places aren't valuable somewhere along the line. I think 13 this point directly ties into the one we were talking about 14 a moment ago in terms of time frame. I mean, what is a ..
15 natural ecosystem today may be a parking lot in 15 years, if 16 you take Chamburg as my example.
17 Even beyond that, you know, your allusion earlier 18 to the notion of groundwater, the whole concept of a natural 19 ecosystem also has tu be seen, again, in geologic time, in a-l 20 different kind of time frame and time constraint than we are 21 used to dealing with in talking about these kinds of issues.
22 So, while we may not necessarily specifically have a 23 standard, you know, like Dr. Cember was indicating earlier, 24 I don't know that 100 milirems per year is going to matter 25 to the oak tree in my back yard, but that's not the point.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l 222 1 The point is that an ecosystem must be protected from 2 varjous kinds of contamination, pollutants, et cetera, and 3 we need to consider it from a different standpoint. So, the 4 milirem standard for me isn't the issue. The protection is, 5 which I guess is basically what Robert just said.
6 MS. STINSON: Herman, go ahead. ,
7 MR. CEMBER: Just one more comment. Radiation is 8 radiation, and it really doesn't matter where it comes from, 9 but if we're going to set standards for natural systems, it 10 seems to me we also have to look at the practicality of 11 enforcing them, and I believe El Capitan is this big 12 monolith and Yosemite Park is made of granite, and granite 13 is pretty radioactive. It would be much higher than the 14 other surrounding background. So, would that mean that we 15 would have to chip away at El Capitan and bury it somewhere?
16 This is reductio ad absurdum, I understand. I don't think 17 ve'll do that.
18 MS. STINSON: Again.
19 MR. CEMBER: Yes, but it just seems to me -- I'm l 20 just using to illustrate -- that I think from a practical 21 point of view, it would really be extremely difficult or 22 impossible to enforce standards on natural systems, and I 23 think we have to think about, you can have all kinds of 24 laws, but unless they can be enforced -- or regulations, 25 unless they can be met and enforced, what do they mean?
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W , Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
223 1 MS. STINSoN: Can you pass your microphone down to 2 Carolyn?
3 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I would hope we'd do a little 4 better than that. It sesms to me that we've got experts on 5 a lot of things here. We do have some people who've studied 6 the health effects of radiation on human health. I think 7 that the difficulty with the standard is.the complexity of 8 natural system. I think it's essential that to the extent 9 that EPA is involved, it's environmental protection, and we 10 have to come up with -- whether it's a separate standard, we 11 have to have standards that look at what happens to the 12 birds and the bunnies and the deer that you might be eating 13 tomorrow, maybe not in Chamburg, but at least in the county 14 somewhere. I think it's essential, and I hope it goes ..
15 without saying, whether we have a break or not.
16 MS. STINSoN: Thank you. Mary?
17 MS. SINCLAIR: This business of a dose of 18 radiation is a dose of radiation seems to overlook the fact 19 that certain kinds of isotopes have various effec's on 20 animal, plant life, and human life. I'm citing the Section 21 137 that concentrated to extremely high levels, so that even 22 though you may find that based in water, it can be an 23 extremely small amount, but by the time you get up in the 24 food chain, it's a very highly measurable amount. So, you 25 have to consider the various ways in which isotopes also add ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 _. ._ _ --
~. _ _
5 7'
. 2'24
~ 1- to the environment,-particularly the created l isotopes. :The-2 - ecosystems have evolved.wJth the natural background, the _
3 granits and-so on. They are quite remarkable out there,_ ,
4 but what we have been putting out'in the-way of ouri r
5 officially created; isotopes have shown to be extremely.
6 dangerous and a continuing burden-onfall of our' future 7 generations. I think.that's important.
8 MS. STINSON:- Mike? - !
9 MR. WILLIAMS: I think you only needtone standard, 10 because I know of no instance in which of you set:a; 11 standard, especially a risk limit type standard that will' I 12 protect human health that will not protect the environmental
- i- 13 and the natural systems'as well'. So, I don't know of any-14 radiation dose that a human would receive that would.be: ... ,
15 hazardous to the natural systems, so if-your standard covers 16 human protection, it covers that automatically.
17 MS. STINSON: This is-' sort of the inherent part ofi
.18 this question. Does there need to be~a standard in additioni :
19 to the standard established-for protection of human health, 20 or should the standard.be established lto protect both? :Did-i_.
L 21 you want to comment further, Mary? ~
L E
22 MS. SINCLAIR: Well, I hauld-say the' standard.-
l 23 should protect both. So,'if the tendency is-to believe'that-L l:
i
-24 you can do things to natural systems that you couldn't_get 25 away with doing to populations -- -
ANN RlLEY & -ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W.,= Suite 300 L Washington,iD. C. 20006 L
, , - , ,, =a
- (202)-293-3950-
e 225' 1 MS. STINSON: Right, and I=think that's what many 2 of you that are making comments are trying to get at.
3 David, did you have a further comment?
4 HR. KRAFT: A very brief one.
5 MS. STINSON: Okay, and then Henry.
6 MR. KRAFT: We seem to be also relegating this 7 just to the concept that it's the quantity of radiation that 8 we dump into the natural system that could come back'to 9 haunt us, and that may not be the case. If my chemistry _
10 serves me correct, ionizing radiation and interaction with' 11 certain natural organic compounds can cause carcinogens.
D 12 Now, those could come back to haunt us, and we might not get '
13 the connection that it was produced by ionizing radiation.
14 But more basically, this notion that we are setting' ,,
15 standards for a natural system is kind of ironic, when it's 16 usually the other way around. We just don't always have-the 17 wisdom to recognize that, and since we don't have that' 18 capacity yet, I think we ought to go a little cautious with 19 nature.
20 MS. STINSON:. Menry?
21 MR. ROYAL: Again, it seems to be that we're 22 taking a very narrow view of what the risk is to the 23 ecosystem. I live in St. Louis near Weldon Springs and have 24 had a chance to look at the restoration of that site as it's 25 going on. One of the things that's remarkable to me is that ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
226 1 when you clean up a site, you scrape up the topsoil, and you 2 totally change its ecology.. Then often, you'll take that 3 radioactive waste and dump it on some pristine site that 4 you're going to have as your low level waste-site. So, when 5 we talk about the risk to the environment, we have to have a 6 very broad view of what it is that we're doing to the 7 environment and not just what the radiation dose is to a 8 particular animal at the site.
9 MS. STINSON: Any other comments around the table?
10 We appreciate everyone's patience. _ We're going to take an 11 opportunity now for public comment on any of the things that 12 we've discussed this afternoon. Anything anyone wants to 13 add?
14 AUDIENCE: I think one of the things I have heard ,,
15 --
16 MR. LESNICK: Name and organization?
17 AUDIENCE: Charlotte Shulmy, Margot National Lab -
18 - that we had sort of agreed on an inherent-risk goal which 19 is background, and I just thought that it would be worth 20 bringing it up as a point.
21 MR. LESNICK: Uait a minute. If you're assuming-22 there was consensus around this_ table on any one of those 23 things, you weren't in the couversation I was' listening to 24 at least.
2r MS. STINSON: Mary?
4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
227 1 AUDIENCE: Mary White. I'm with the American 2 t*uclear Society at Argon National Laboratory. I have a-3 couple of comments to make. one is an answer-to a question
, 4 that Chris asked earlier,.what do you do if we have new 5 standards come out, criteria, and we already have all-the 6 ones that the state has been implementing from D&D, already 7 interfaced with the state with the differences in the 8 criteria among agencies and among time frames. There are 9 some examples of this, and I will talk with her later about-10 it, but primarily let's look at Grand Junction where-we did-11 have two entirely different sets of standards set, probably 12 about eight years apart.
13 There were about 10,000 properties addressed under 14 the two different standards, and there was a consensus 15 developed with the state'who actually ran that program, and 16 .they're still running it. That state involvement has been 17 the saving of that particular program'and the differences in 18 standards and criteria. They understood it. They tried to 19 interpret it to the people. They tried to document things.
20 They've done a super job. I think they are going to find a 21 lot more cooperation, but also involvement by the states now 22 than we ever had before. I think this is really good 23 because if it's your state, by golly, you want to get in 24 there and protect your land and your property and your 25 radiation situations. I think we're going to see that, l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-228 1 The other thing I have -- I have to put my glasses 2 on. Just a minute. Nothing is forever, and when you decide 3 to set criteria and standards now, this doesn't mean that in 4 2015, we're not going to come back with more refined 5 measurement, ways of detection instrumentation, better 6 sampling, better definitions of areas, and we may decide to 7 go in an clean up to different standards of that time. It 8 has happaned since the '60's that we've had three or four 9 differcnt octs of standards. I think that there are enough 10 people now involved who were not necesaarily involved at the 11 time that we started cleaning up some of these sites, that 12 we do have that checks and balances system that we did not 13 have before. I think it's very important. The questions
' 14 that the environmentalists have raised are those that have ..
15 brought us here today.
16 AUDIENCEt Stan Seiken from DOE. I'd like to 17 reinforce the comment just made. I have been thinking about 18 the subject of changes, and it seems to me that we have a 19 well-defined methodology in this county for dealing with 20 changes in standards, but industry and technology is not' l 21 standing still. Changes in determin.ation of impact will 22 become more deffned as time goes by. Technology and 23 improving hasn't from hazardous materials, or the dangers of l'
24 cleaning up and dealing with hazardous materials will evolve
( 25 and improve over time. I would certainly expect that the I
1
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
1 Coud Reponers L
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D ' O. 20006 l- (202) 293-3950
229
~1 standards writing people would recognize that as time goes-2 by, rtandards would have to be revisited and changed based 3 upon the refined observation of impact and technological 4 improvem, t. I very much endorse that point.
5 The second point I'd like to make is I'd like to 6 pick a point discussed very early today.- It seems that 7 we've been focusing a great deal on the standard which gets 8 to a numerical criteria. The standards as I've been used to 9 them often deal with methodology and practices which would 10 take into account differences in facilities, types of 11 radionucleides, half-life, short-life considerations, 12 population distribution factors. Is this group, or the NRC 13 and EPA considering standards which develop methodology 14 technique for establishing, which could be applied on a site,,
15 by site basis or on a site specific basis what is and what 16 is not acceptable and adequate remediation?
17 MR. COOL: I think I will respond to that at this 18 point by saying it's too early in the process to tell you 19 exactly what kind of standard, and while that may sound a 20 little bit like a put-off, one of the things that we're 21 attempting to do here is try and define what sort of 22 standard will work best, and so the kind of input that you 23 can give us and that others can give us as to whether the 24 standard should be a process or have a number or some 25 combination is what we're attempting to do here over this ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i
- 230~
1 and the other workshops.- It's not outside the= realm of 2 possibilities that= that' aight be the kind of standard;if 3 that's the kind ofLinput_we receive.=
4 AUDIENCE: .I'm Betty. Johnson. .I'm from Rockford,-
5 Illinois, and I must say that I was very pleased.- IJthought-6 I was going to have to say something about the problem with 7 background radiation and what happens1when you're 8 decommissioning and moving waste-into other: areas so that-9 you get bioaccumulation in the' groundwater and-surface-10 water. The other thing is that they didn't mention'too much~
11 of the different types of radiation. Maryfbrought'it'up; 12 The particulate radiation, which gets into the food chain,; ,
13- gets into the body, and alpha, beta and gamma radiation, 14 .there's a difference in what-they do. That makes a lot of ,,
15 difference between your granite and your. altitude and your 16 sea level radiation. There's-different types.
17 The thing that I think-I could-bring uptthat:
18 nobody's really-talked about tco much in:the^healthfissthe 19 fact that these radiation standards, as well"as.the.
20 hazardous and' toxic material standards are-generally not' 21 entirely health based.- In general,:they are basedLon the.
22- fatal cancer risk for a healthy young adult male. 'There is 23- no consideration of the most sensitive populations, which-l 24 are children,' pregnant women, the elderly, and'those who are-l- ,
25 ill with a chronic illness of some sort.
p L
L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
c Court Reporters-1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l _
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)-293-3950-. . - -
231
+
1 The other thing is that they usually only set 2 standards for one chemical at a time, and they don't talk 3 about the synergistic and cumulative effects of these 4 things. I think that's a very important thing that you need 5 to be looking at when you're setting up these standards and' 6 looking at what happens. For instance, the average in 241 7 that's used in the average smoke detector in part of their 8 way of getting rid of the waste, I was told on a very good 9 authority -- I have a letter on it -- that the alpha 10 radiation, if you were using a meter to tell whether you had 11 radon in your basement and you also had one of th se smoke 12 detectors, the average meter could not tell the difference 13 whether the alpha radiation was coming from your smoke 14 detector. They do leak. You have the clean the and so 15 forth, or whether it was from radon. There's things like l 16 that that need to be dealt with, so I think those are very 17 important, and I hope you'll take them into consideration 18 when you're talking about background and the health effects 19 of radiation. Thank you.
20 MS. STINSoN: Any other comments from the 21 observers?
l 22 MR. LESNICK: Herman, did you want to make a quick 23 comment here?
24 MR. CEMBER: Just on two things. Number one, the 25 standards, whether they're for chemical carcinogens or ANN RILEY- & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950 l
232 1 radioactive carcinogens, are based on a continuous exposure-2 of 70 years. So, it's not maybe for a healthy 70-year old, 3 but it's not a healthy child. I forgot, what was the last 4 point she made? Oh, yes.
5 The distance that the alpha radiation' travels from .
6 one of those smoke detectors is approximately two inches, as-7 far as the distance that it travels in air before it changes 8 from an alpha particle to a helium atos. So, if your radon 9 detector were more than two inches away from the smoke.
10 detector, it would nct pick up the alpha radiation from the ,
11 smoke detector.
12 MS. STINSON: Thank you for that clarification. I 13 want to start by congratulating everyone. We've gotten 14 through the first cross cutting issue discussion. We're ..
15 running a little bit behind. I'd like to ask you to take a 16 break, come back at 4:10, if you would, please,- and we'll 17 move into technical capabilities.
18 [Brief recess.)
19 MS. LEWIS: The next topic area has to do with 2v technical capabilities, so I'll refer you to your agenda B, 21 and also again to our matrix that we passed around. As an 22 approach to get us into this discussion, what I'm going to 23 suggest is that we skip the generic question at the top and 24 go right to the first bullet, which is what technical 25 capabilities would be needed to implement the approaches, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
233 1 and rather than going approach by approach, I'd like to ask 2 it as a general question and ask you to look at all of the 3 approaches and do some comparing and contrasting between the 4 approaches as you try to answer the question.
5 So, let me open it up. Again,_what technical 6 capabilities would be needed to implement the approaches?.
7 Mike?
8 MR. WEBER: It might be useful to stimulate-9 discussion and say that when the agencies got together an 10 looked at the agenda and we talked about this agenda item, 11 we recognized that there are different technological 12 capabilities. You have capabilities in terms of the 13 technology to do the decommissioning, to scabble the wall, 14 to use carbon dioxide pellets to blast the contamination off,,
15 a wall. You have technological capabilities in terms of the 16 qualified health physicists, nuclear engineers and others 17 that would be involved in designing, conducting the 18 remediation.
19 You've got technical capabilities in terms of 20 modeling to convert whatever residual radioactivity is left 21 behind into dose or risk. You've got the whole 22 infrastructure question about do you have the laboratory 23 support that you would need to process all the soil samples, 24 all the smears and swipes that you would collect in 25 demonstrating the facilities as properly cleaned up. It's ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
234 1
all those that we have in mind. If you all see-particular 2
shortfalls in our capabilities which would be useful in 3
contrasting the various approaches, that's the kind of 4
feedback that we need.
5 MS. LEWIS: Herman? Is your card -- that's left 6 over.
7 MR. CEMBER: Oh, well. That's left over, but let 8 me just --
9 A general comment, seriously, one of the main 10 rules, I think, is that everything has to go somewhere, and 11 the second corollary is that there's no such thing as a free 12 lunch.
So, considering those two things, if we have 13 capabilities for removing everything, let's say, what do we i
14 do with the stuff that we remove? The stuff that we remove 15 ..
is then called low level radioactive waste, presumably, and 16 what do we do with it?
17 Do we take this low level waste and put it into a pristine environment and contaminate the 18 environment, 19 or do we lower it down into the holes in the ground, which I've never seen, but in Nevad? where they used l 20 to test bombs, which are already radioactive, and the cost 21 of doing all this, and I mention this before the -- not the 22 money cost, but the --
23 MS. LEWIS: I'm going to intervene here. We do 24 have a separate topic on vaste management.
25 MR. CEMBER: oh, okay.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006
_ _ _ - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _- nus - w--- _--
235 1 MS. LEWIS: So, I1think we'll be coming back to 2 this. Also, before we continue with the discussion, I'd 3 like to mention that we have a new person at the table who's 4 replacing Pam. Let me ask Nick to introduce himself.
5 MR. LAILAS: I'm Nick Lailas. I have the happy 6 task of being responsible for providing-the technical 7 support for the standard setting of the EPA side of federal 8 facilities, primarily DOE and DOD, and I'd just like to say-9 that we've been working very closely with-NRC staff, 10 specifically Don Cool's people, where we've been meeting on 11 a regular basis in what.we call our technical underpinnings.
12 The end result of this is to come out with some publications 13 that would be put out jointly under one cover, and instead 14 of NRC/ EPA, DOE coming out with a site characterization ,,
15 manual, or modeling. We're going to attempt, wherever Tnr 16 can, to combine all of these into one. That's all I have to 17 say right now.
18 MS. LEWIS: Thanks. David?
19 MR. MINNAR: In answer to Mike's question, and 20 maybe it's a take-off from'What Al Johnson was alluding to 21 earlier, it seems to me one of the key technological 22 problems here is not so much in clean-up technology or even-23 sampling and surveying and laboratory analysis, but it.is.in 24 terms of dosimetry and modeling. Going from volumetric type 25 contamination to dose, there seemed to be quite a few codes ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
236 1 around that handled that. Surface contamination may be at'a 2 different matter. I'm not aware of a whole lot out there 3 that's available to go from surface contamination standard 4 limits, proposed limits or anything else that's highly 5 reliable to project a dose to an individual considering a 6 pathway analysis. I'd be happy to hear from others around 7 the. table or even in the audience later about information 8 concerning that approach to tackling the surface 9 contamination issue.
10 MS. LEWIS: And are there different implications-11 for perhaps lack of modeling capability for these different 12 approaches? Is it going to be the same problem across the 13 board, or would there be different levels of difficulty 14 given lack of modeling expertise for these different 15 approaches?
16 MR. MINNAR: Well, assuming what you mean by-17 approaches then being the four basic regulatory approaches, 18 I think I menticned earlier, but I'll say it again,-I'm-in i
19 favor of a risk based type approach, with the concept of l
20 ALARA folded, and perhaps even also the concept of the l
l 21 constraint as used by ICRP to actually codify a dose limit 22 lower than what we've established as a dose limit for an 23 individual member of the public. I think it's appropriate 24 for-a decommissioning standard to achieve some degree of 25 conservatism below that which we accept as acceptable risk
?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suito 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950
237 e 1 based on health effects.
2 As far as modeling goes, there's been a lot of 3 work modeling contamination in a volumetric form, but-I'm 4 not aware, and thus, this would apply directly to that 5 approach, a risk based type approach. In the surface 6 contamination area, as has been mentioned, the standards 7 that do exist for surface contamination are not necessarily l 8 risk based or dose based, and it sounds like we have to 9 start back at square one,-unless there's some work out -
10 there. I'd be interested to know.
11 MS. LEWIS: Mike? 1 12 MR. WEBER: If I could just comment briefly and 13 then maybe turn it over to Don, NRC has been trying to-14 address that as part of the technical basis for whatever- ..
15 criteria we come up with, and we published NUREG CR5512, 16 which addresses not only the volumetric contamination, but 17 also surface contamination, and being able to relate that .
18 back to some dose or-therefore a risk basis. We have copies 19 of that available. Certainly, if people have other 20 alternative methods out there that they want to compare that-1 21 against, or if you look at the document and you see flaws in 22 the methodology, we'd like to know that now because we're in 23 the process of encoding all that methodology into a computer l
l 24 code, with the intent to make that code available, more or 25 less on a parallel time frame with this ruling, so that if L
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud Repoders l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l' 238 1 we come up with a dose base or risk base or some other 2 approach for the residual radiological criteria, that 3 computational capability will be made available 4 concurrently, and people could, therefore, relate to it. Do 5 you want to add anything?
6 MR. COOL: The first is that this morning, when I 7 talked about some of the technical underpinnings that we had 8 available, some of the other things going on, if you'll 9 recali the last slide I put up there, I noted that we had 10 published NUREG CR5512 and then commented that unfortunately 11 we didn't have copies here. Well, the U.S. Mail system, in-12 fact, did not fail us. They arrived this morning. There 13 are now copies out on the table for pe,ple who would like to 14 pick some up. ..
15 One of the things that we attempted to do -- this 16 is strictly as background information -- was to provide some 17 modeling for the exact sort of thing that you're talking 18 about, not only volumetric in soils, but how to deal with 19 contamination on the surface that you were referring to.
20 The NUREG contains models for several diff3 rent kinds of 21 scenarios -- building use, as well as residency drinking 22 water and some of those things.
23 I would suggest that we not necessarily try to-get 24 into a detailed discussion here this afternoon about those 25 kinds of models. However, I would love for you to take a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
239-1 copy of the document, if you have-not had a chance to get 2 one already, take a look at it, and as Mike Weber-indicated, 3 provide us with some comments on that. We are moving to a 4 computer code, which we would be in hopes to use to support 5 whatever kind of approach comes out.
6 Now I want to try and bridge us back, if the 7 facilitators will let me, to what we want to try and do 8 here, which is to see are there some differences -- and 9 maybe the answer is no, maybe the answer is yes -- on the 10 kinds of characterizations or models that we would use, 11 depending on the approach we would take. Would you use the 12 exact same modeling approach for a limit and a goal and a 13 return to background? Would you use the same kind of survey 14 criteria or even the same sorts of laboratory procedures if ,,
15 you were attempting to return to background, as opposed'to 16 if you were trying to demonstrate compliance with a limit.
17 That's some of the things that we had in mind, Mike Weber 18 said a little while ago, to try and bring out here. Were 19 there differences? Were there things that we needed to look-20 at in the underpinnings or the reality that would 21 differentiate between the possible approaches.
22 MS. LEWIS: Thanks. Al?
23 MR. JOHNSON: I'd like to discuss some of the same
+-
24 issues associated with if you did develop a standard or if 25 you do develop a standard, once a standard is developed, I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
240 1 would hope that we wouldn't have a standard-that only 2 outlines-what the rules of the game were and that it's up to-3 each individual licensee to_take those rules, plug it into a 4 formula, and come up with a number. It can't just be that 5 because in real life, what's going to happen and what 6 happens every day today, is somewhere along the line 7 eventually, an individual, whethcr it be an engineer or 8 somebody, will take, whether it's_a goal or a limit _or a 9 best case or best effort or a return to. background, 10 someone's going to come up with a number, and you're going 11 to send a bunch of technicians,-physics technicians, that 12 are qualified to do in field measurements, and then they're 13 going to have to determine after the decontamination is 14 over, whether or not the effort was successful enough to ,,
15 meet the limits established.
l 16 Again, whether it's a goal or-a risk limit or a 17 best effort case, it always comes down to the answer, are we 18 finished? Are the contamination efforts, were they 19 successful in reducing the contamination, because clearly, 20 if the contamination is there, there's going to be a 21 decontamination process to remove it. At that point, you 22 have to decide whether or not you've obtained your goal.
-23 So, I guess in trying to address whether or not it 24 would be different for a risk limit, a risk goal, a best 25 effort, or return to_ background, someone always, not matter ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.'N., Suite 300 kVashing$on, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
.241-1- what that-is, once that methodology that-you choose.to 2 develop the standard,_-is going to:have to come up_with a 3 number that_is-implementable in the_ field.- What-I would-
~
4 propose people to think about-is that;the. limits can't be-5 impractical, and that you can't ---if.you come with all the-6 ~~ plug all the numbers into your formula and come with 7 that, well, you need to now' insure that our' contamination!
S levels are 2 DP-over 100 centimeters-squared.-lYou know, yes-9 the-formula worked, yes the limits were appropriate, thel 10 assumptions that were used to develop it-were okay, but the--
11 number that you came out with_is' unattainable.
12 .This is not without precedence. In_ fact, in'_the 13 nuclear power industry today, there is no limit for tne 14 release of radioactive material that is acceptable:to'the -
15 general public.- In fact, I believe.it's-in some informat' ion'-
16 notices,-8592 and 8107. They talk about how-you can't:
17 release radioactive material, and their definition ~is-no
, 18 detectable radioactive material. I would try to ask that we 19 stay away from that type of definition as.well, because.in 20 reality, the-technician-is still there with the_same meter, 21- looking to see if he's seeing anything.above background, and 22 that's what we're doing now today.
23 MS. LEWIS: okay, thanks.- Mike?-
24 MR. WILLIAMS: With regard to technical 25 capabilities, there's nothing that I know-of that prevents ANN -RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D. C. 20006 '
(202) 293 3950
I 242 1 us from being able to measure and assess levels of 2 contamination. I think it was Frank that mentioned earlier, 3 is it going to require me to use field instruments, or am I 4 going to have to take samples back to a lab and analyze them 5 for ten days? What's it going to require? I guess, and I 6 know we have a specific category to talk about cost and 7 other considerations. To me, the constraint is not your 3 technical capabilities. The constraint is technical 9 capabilities within what limits of practicality in the 10 field, and I think what Al is talking about, too, cut there 11 in the field, is that where I'm going to do all my 12 measurements, or am I going to have to do them all in the 13 lab?
14 Also, just in the sheer practice of sampling, how ,,
15 do I pull samples? I can't sample every square inch of soil 16 and piece of my property. So, it has to be something that I 17 can reasonably do and with statistical sampling methods and 18 reasonable assurance that I can demonstrate compliance with 19 whatever you guys come up with, and that's the real issue.
20 I don't see it as do I have technical ability to do 21 something. It's can I demonstrate compliance reasonably and 22 practically in the field without spending hundreds of 23 millions of dollars just to do that.
24 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Richard?
25 MR. ALLEN: I have sort of a generic concern about ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. 1 Coud Reponers l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 243 1 the way we're going through this process. It can certainly 2 be argued that the choice of one objective over another 3 objective has great impact on some of these cross cutting 4 issues, like technical capabilities that you've identified.
5 I guess the question I'm asking is that does NRC intend to 6 use this process in the reverse manner, and that is to say 7 that, just to give, you know, an example, that a risk goal 8 approach is a better approach because the technical 9 capabilities, or that the technical development requirements 10 are fewer for that approach. Is that the way you intend to 11 weight these sorts of things, that if there are fewer 12 technical problems with the given approach, that that makes 13 it a more desirable approach?
14 MR. COOL: I think I'll try to respond to that, ..
15 and then maybe some of the other will want to chime in. No ,
16 our purpose here is not to find the least number of problems 17 and then jump on that. What I'm looking for here are the 18 pros and cons for why to take a particular view, and while 19 that certainly right be one of them, that might be one of 20 the considerations which goes into it, that certainly by no 21 means would be the only consideration. I'm not going to 22 total them all up and find that I have five comments here 23 and six comments over there and 25 comments over here, and 24 therefore it's one way or another.
25 Our intention is to take a comprehensive and ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (Pop) 293-3950
244 1 thoughtful look at everything that has been said here and 2 try and understand what that means in terms of putting 3 together a particular regulatory approach or particular 4 proposal for consideration, and to try and use this as a 5 basis for writing up one of those regulatory documents you -
6 always see which is known as the statement of 7 considerations, why we did what we did.
8 MS. LEWIS: Allan?
9 MR.-RICHARDSON: I'd like to suggest an additional 10 convention that we should think about in looking at-these 11 four approaches with respect to implementation problems and 12 technology measurement modeling and so on and so forth.
13 One of the options that both agencies have is the 14 units in which they express the standard. They can express ..
15 the standard in terms of potentials lives saves, the risk 16 thing directly. They could express the standard in terms of 17 dose to an individual that would have to be defined in some 18 way, or they could express the standard in terms of the 19 concentration of material in the medium that was being 20 cleaned up. There are some real implications for those 21 choices that are just in the area that we're talking about.
22 You wouldn't have to do risk modeling if you were talking-23 about a concentration and soil approach. That would have 24 already been done in deriving the standard in a generic way.
25 From my point of view, it would be interesting to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
245 1 haar some. discussion of how important it is to be able.to do 2 on a site specific basis fot risk modeling, or how important 3 it would be to avoid having to do it.
4 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Let's pick up with that 5 question specifically. Responses? Robert?-
6 MR. SHARKEY: I think you need the flexibility to 7 be able to do the risk base modeling, but you should have 8 some standard that is readily measurable to' start. -Maybe 9 you recognize some differences in your site from what the 10 generic risk based standards are made up from, and at that 11 point, you can use your own risks, you own model, or use the 12 model with your particular parameters plugged in.
13 MS. LEWIS: Frank?
14 MR. RESCEK: If you regulate it from a standpoint ,,
15 of concentrations, there has to be an underlying risk limit-16 that you use to get there, and you've now created a standard-17 model that you try to fit every licensee into. Again, then 18 that model will be the most conservative model, and/or might 19 be an average model, but it leads to results where licensees 20 that the Commission will end up having met a different risk 21 in the end, beesuse they may be different from the model.
22 It seems that licensee should have the flexibility to apply 23 their site characteristics and their modeling to show-24 compliance to the risk limit. So, I favor flexibility and 25 would favor something on the order of reg guides that would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K. St'est, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1
/
2462 1 provida models-_toLuse:to show compliance toza risk limit._
2 MS, LEWIS:. Mark?
3 MR. DORUFF: I think there's somewhat of a e 4 -precedent _in utilizing different units to_ achieve the same i
5 level of protection, and the one that comes to mind is the 6 comply code where you have different-levels:of compliance, 7 and as you go further and further into the_ standard options, 8 you become 1, s and less conservative, but you take into 9 account a number of other site specific factors.: I don't 10 want to-say that we need to recreate a comply code for. ..
11 decommissioning activities, but I think you can look at that 12 and see that there are alternatives to just going in_-terms.
13 of dose or in terms of risk. You can u e levels of -- you 14 could use concentrations in error concentrations. In water, 15 you can use surface DPM's. Again, I don't.think the purpose 16 of the workshop should be to establish what those limits ,
17 should be, but I think that the: methodology has been'used 18 before, and I-think-it could be used'in.a code or in the use 19 of any other compliance standards for decommissioning 20 activities.
- 21. MS.-LEWIS: The question is what comply codes are 22 you referencing?
23 MR. DORUFF: The NISHAP comply code for 24 radionucleides.
25 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Other couments-in response to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)'293-3950
247 1 Allan's question? Yes?
2 MR. WEDER: Just to turn that thought around to 3 promote some more discussion, to the extent that whatever 4 approach is selected allows for some flexibility to tailor 5 the modeling for specific sites, that also may raise the 6 prospect of more distrust on the part of the local people in 7 that the people are just twiddling knobs. Any experienced 8 modeler knows that you can adjust the parameters and get 9 basically whatever answer you want. If you have a standard 10 or even a number that comes out of a regulatory guide, that 11 might be seen as advantageous because you have a number.
12 You have -- like we have Reg Guide 1.86. You have 1,000 13 disintegrations per minute for 100 square centimeters.
14 That's a number. People can go out, and there's no debate 15 about it. Yes, you've met it or no, you haven't. There is 16 some debate on it. There's technology and all of those 17 other things,-but apart from those aspects, contrast that to 18 a modeling approach where you might have a risk based limit, 19 and then the licensee has used some level on a hierarchical 20 modeling scheme, perhaps at the mid-level. You've been 21 given the model and the regulatory guidance, but now you're 22 adjusting the parameters to fit your specific site. It 23 might be useful to promote discussion about that.
24 MS. LEWIS: Anybody awake? Okay, actually, I see 25 Carolyn.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.- C. 20006 .
(202) 293-3950
248 1 -MS. RAFFENSPERGER: Are we presuming that the 2 licensee does the modeling?
3 MR. WEBER: _That's an option.
4 MS. LEWIS: Do you haveLsome specific thoughts on 5 that? -
6 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: Yeah, I'd vote against it.
7 MS. LEWIS: I thought you might.
8 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I'd vote against-that. I 9 think two things. One is, I think you've addressed clearly 10 soms of the probiert with modeling. You get folks who sit 11 in front of a computer and think great thoughts about what 12 might be out there with incredible algorhythms that are 13- elegant and beautiful and have no bearing on reality, and I-14 would much sooner trust one of those old geologists with a ,,
15 slide rule out there saying, "Got a. problem," rather than, 16 you know, the young Turk who's in love with algorhythms.
17 The other thing is, I don't like a licensee-doing-18 the modeling. I think that there's so much discretion built 19 into that complex computer -- and I want to know what you're 20 grinning about, Chip.
21 MR. CAMERON: It's just that there's a movie 22 titled, "The Young Turk Who Was In Love With Algorhythms."
23 MS; RAFFENSPERGER: And who's going to play the.
24 lead?
25 MR. CAMERON: I looked into it to find out who the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
249 1 60-year geologist with the slide rule was.
2 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Al?-
3 MR. JOHNSON: I'd like to follow up on what Mike 4- said. If you look at the recent history associated with 5 rule making, it's been involved with modeling, just the ERC.
6 The applications for -- under the old 10 CFR 20 for the 10 7 CFR 20.302 applications which involved a case by case by 8 basis. So, you can apply to the NRC and there's an NRC 9 impact, and there's an NRC impacts code that could be used.
10 From that, you could dispose of radi'oactive material at your 11 site other than a licensed or waste burial site. Usually, 12 those applications will evolve very, very low amounts of 13 radioactive material in either sand or soil that a licensee 14 says it's there, but it's there because I have the best' , , _
15 detection capabilities in the world, and I can see it if I 16 count it for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. I recognize the fact that it's 17 there, and I'd like to use that soil because there's 2,000 j 18 cubic meters of it, which would cost millions of dollars to 19 dispose of, and use it for backfill underneath my parking 20 lot. I could show that modeling and do the calculations so 21 that it's not going to be a problem, either in risk or-l 22 associated with dose to the environment or anything.
23 Those applications take an awful long time, and 24 there's a lot of questions because of the modeling process 25 and because of all of the assumptions that are involved ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud Repone s 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
250 1 because of the need for information to go-.back and forth, 2 One question seems to lead to ten,-which.seems to lead:to a 3 hundred more. So, I would vote, if'I had a vote, but don't.
4 The approach that Reg Guide 1186 took said, here are some -
5 limits, and I think those limits should be established past 6 just residual contamination levels but into concentrations 7 for soil, concentrations for water, air, if_that's 8 appropriate. Then if you want to apply for a specific. case 9 by case situation where you think that your situation is 10 different, and I have this facility that I'm located in the-11 middle of the desert where there's not going to be any 12 people here and I don't have a groundwater problem, I'd like 13 either not to have to look at that. There are a lot of~
14 facilities other than ours, nuclear medicine facilities or ,,
15 other ones that just use the radioactive material that's_in 16 the solid sealed state. Why would we bother with those guys 17 to submit applications that would involve doing groundwater 18 modeling? All they were doing is they were using this ,
19 radioactive material, and it was in a cup, and it was always 20 in a cup and was solid.
~
21 As long as I was using-it and it was there in 22 front of me, I was controlling it, and now I'm finished with 23 it, and I'd just like to give it to somebody else. So, my 24 criteria for decommission my limits would be that I have to 25 radioactive material at my site. So, I guess I would vote l
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
L251 1 for limits that could be established that would'either say 2 that I'm meeting or not, and then you could even, in the 3 decommissioning plan process, go into an ALARA approach if 4 you'd like, establish the limits --
5 MS. LEWIS: Okay, Allan.
6 MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. ,
7 MS. LEWIS: Wrap it up.
8 MR. JOHNSON: I'll take it down a little bit lower 9 than that. My limit.would be ten percent of that.
10 MS. LEWIS: Okay, thanks. Robert?
.11 MR. OWEN: Mike, I don't know whether you were 12 espousing the generic model or not. I think it would be 13 inappropriate to not address reality and allow for site 14 specific parameters as opposed to always assuming the ,,
15 conservative approach such as ten layers of dust as opposed 16 to what may be actually what's there. The wind's' blowing.in 17 one direction or whatever, and always arriving after an -
18 array of conservative assumptions coming.in with a number.
19 As a case in point, I had -- one of my staff 20 people did that recently, and assumption sounded glamorous, 21 and after using it up, it's like this megarem dose. When-l 22 you use site specific parameters, it's 14 milirem or 23 whatever, and then you've unduly alarmed the public. You've 24 cause action that was needless, and I think you absolutely l 25 could be on the realm of reality, and I don't think that's L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
, COud Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
252 1
^l 1 good. ~i 2 Also, let me say this, that as a state, when we 3 look at our own sites, I would want to have -- I would want' )
4 to have the' allowance as a-regulatory agency, to be able to 5 tweak that in whatever fashion we need to to address local 'l 6 concerns.
7 MS. LEWIS: Mike?. ,
8 MR. WILLIAMS With regard to 1l;udeling,-and.
9 fortunately, it's a way of life in many areas,_and the ] ,
10 reason is is that technically, we'can't measure three 11 miliram per year dose.- We're modeling and calculating dose 12 to an individual that is a hypothetical-individual. We !
13 don't even know if that dose will ever occur. I.think with-14 regard to a general model versus. specific, yeah, generic __ ,_
f i
is models are great, but I would agree with what Robert says, j 16 that you need to be able to incorporate site specific ,
17 factors. To allay your fears, Carolyn, no: licensee that I 18 know of can'go in and dink with~the model until_he gets the -
19 number he wants and_ fly about his merry way.
20 NRC still has to approve the site specific factors; t 21 that you've incorporated and the final results that_you come _
22 up with. So, it's not as though the regulator says, here',
23 you take this'and come up with the number you-like',-and 24 we'll smile and let you_go.- I think maybe-that was-25 misunderstood when it was. originally stated that way. -
S o ,- .
i ANN RlLEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd. -
Court Reporters 1612. K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D,- C. 20006 r
- (202) 293 3950- -, -_,
. .- - . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - ~ _ . _ _ ._ . _ . _ _ _
253 1 while we are able to make changes to models, they have to be 2 thoroughly documented and we have t:o convince the regulator -
l 3 that those are appropriate and correct.
4 MS LEWIS: Okay. Why don't we look at a_few of 5 the other technologies in addition to modeling that might be 6 required to implement these various approaches. We have a ;
7 list in front of us -- measurement site, characterization, ,
8 monitoring, and so forth. Are there comments about '
9 differences that would bs needed in somd of these other-10 types of technologies besides modeling?- Robert?-
1 11 MR. oWEN: My comment -- it's really a question, 12 actually. I'm not really clear-about-what you're driving 1 13 toward in the way of modeling -- excuse me, monitoring. I 14 assume this is environmental monitoring, is that correct? ,,
15- Are we going to a specific protocol for that? Is that 16 irregardless of the site question? Is this a generic
- 17 protocol?
18 MR.' WEBER: Maybe I could give an example which 19 might help clarify-for the discussion. If the criterion 20 selected was background, because you're dealing with' lower 21 levels of contamination, the count times might'be a. lot 22 longer. The sensitivity of the instrumentation might'be a-23 lot lower. It might demand-more laboratory analysis rather~
24 than field' analysis. This would impose a burden on the
- l. 25 laboratory capabilities, versus an approach which would be-.
I:
l L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. r Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D.. C. 20006
- o (202) 293 3950
b
.254 1 the best technology,-which is you go'out there and scabble t
2 your concrete wall, and you're done.- So, the monitoring, 3 especially with the best effort,_may be' nil in some cases.
4 I'm just throwing that out for the sake'of discussion. l 5 That's what's really in mind in terns of comparing and 6 contrasting various approaches.
7 You could say the same thing for regulatory review , t 8 capabilities. What kind of regulatory review -- what' kind 9 of expertise would a regulatory agency need to review the: ;
10 '
applicant's application of a best effort? Did they drive a 11 bulldozer across the site? Yes? Okay. You know, that '
12 requires far less than an approach, for example,-that might-13 rely heavily on modeling, where the regulatory staff needs "
14 expertise in modeling. What models are out there? WhatJare 15 their capabilities? How do you apply them. correctly? How >
t 16 do you not-apply them correctly?
17 I think one of the case studies that we sent 18 around raise some of these aspects in terms.of regulatory 19 review capabilities necessary. So, that's what's'in mind in ,
20 terms of contrasting the differentLtechniques.
21 MR. OWEN: Well, one~of the things that we're 22 embarking on in Ohio is to monitor the sites. One of the 1 23 things that we're quickly finding out is that it does 24 requira a lot more' resources.- We're adding 15 people to our; j 25 staff just to do that. It-does require a'significant amount ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. -
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 ,
, .Wsahington, D. C. 20006 (202);293-3950-
l l
l 255 !
1 of equipment and personnel to run -- to do that. Then 2 you've got to have some measttre of standardized to see that 3 it's acceptable, in our case, acceptable to DOE, and in this 4 case, it may be acceptable to NRC and the EPA. But you're 1
5 right, it does, and where are those resources coming from? l 6 That's a good question.
7 In this particular case for us, it comes straight 8 from the DOE, but if NRC came out with a_ generic requirement 9 along those lines, I assume there are no dollars attached.
10 Where is the money coming from to -- from NRC's perspective, 11 to enforce that. Is NRC going to try to do that? Are they 12 going to be the ones affected or what? It goes back to the 13 issue that was raised earlier, of generating the 14 requirements that you can't even enforce. From everybody's ,,
15 standpoint, there's not the resources to do it.
16 MS. LEWIS: Robert?
17 MR. THOMAS: Yes, to say something about the 18 obvious here, but I think we've been talking mostly, what 19 I'm hearing, the monitor annually of detecting radiation 20 with an estimate. If you know get into the analytical l
21 chemistry aspects of some of these things, like let's just 22 for the heck of it say plutonium in soil. You work your way 23 down this chart we have towards background. The cost of 1
24 doing each sample doesn't go down much linearly like this 25 table. It shoots up considerably. I hate to bring money in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
256 1 on this, but I-think it is important lLn this aspect.
2 Along-with that, I think people may have a 3 tendency to look at where they're going to Ample in a 4 situation like this. How many samples are they going _to 5 take, and if there are dollar limits and a cost"on analyzing:
6 soil samples that are pretty high as you approach 7 background, the tendency would be to say perhaps maybe we 8 don't need to take that many examples to characterito.the 9 site. I think this all'has to be thrown in together is all 10 I'm saying, and I haven't heard anyone talk about analytical 11 chemistry. I think that it just shoots sky high when you-12 approach background levels here. t 13 MS. LEWIS Okay. Let me go ahead and move to --
14 there8s a second bullet which talks about cleanup ,,
15 technologies for land structures and ground water. Are 16 there any special considerations between different media or ,
17 different kinds of cleanup situations?_ This is aside from 18 the different technologies that would'come into play as you 19 look at the range of regulatory approaches?-
20 MR. RICHARDSON: I would ask the question what 21 technologies do we have available if we choose the restored 22 or background option with respect to groundwater?
23 MS. LEWIS: Susan?
24 MS. HIATT: Well, I did see an interesting article 25 here in Publication Environment Today which seems to ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 ~
257 1 indicate some progress or potential progress called, 2 " Uranium Eating Microbes Found in Mud and Butter." USGS 3 researchers heve found two micro-organisms that have the 4 ability to remove uranium from water. They change the 5 soluble uranium into insoluble forms. I don't know how 6 close that in to actual implementation into a useable 7 technology, but it does appear to be some promise there. I 8 think that indicates that we may, in fact, be getting 9 promising technologies that could be more effective'and cost 10 effective in solving some of these problems.
11 MR. RICHARDSON: If I could point out, what that 12 does is move the uranium from the water to the aquifer, and 13 then in order to achieve removal, you'd have to remove the 14 aquifer, ,,
15 MS. LEWISt Okay. Any other comments on this ont.?
16 MR. WEBER: That might oversimplify it a little 17 bit. I think the intent would be -- and I haven't read that 18 article, but I've seen similar articles -- the intent would 19 be to extract the contaminated ground water with uranium in 20 the mobile form and then precipitate it out in some sort of 21 waste treatment system, so, in fact,.you're concentrating it 22 on some disposal medium and transfer that to a disposal 23 facility, of course, that begs the question, will you be 24 able to extract uranium that's already on the solids in the 25 aquifer. Is the technology there, or would you have to, as ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
258 1 Allan said, extract the aquifer itself?
2 MS. LEWIS: We don't have a whole lot of people 3 leaping to answer that one. Why don't we ask a somewhat 4 more generic question, which is, in general, what 5 technologies are limiting, or what availability'of .
6 technologies are limiting to the potential application of 7 any of these regulatory approaches? You know, when you look 8 across the spectrum of monitoring, measuring, et cetera, 9 where are the soft spots? Someone said regulating factor 10 and regulating this stuff. Is that accurate? Robert?
11 MR. OWEN: Well, it's getting to what Allan was 12 alluding to. I know at one of our DOE site in Ohio, the 13 issue came up of various technologies as an option,.and the 14 issue was to obviously remediate it in the best fashion 15 possible. Several methods proposed was, you know, pump and 16 treat. This was one. Another would be to obviously remove 17 the water to actually a plume, if possible. I think there 18 was another one, and I forget what that one was. The issue 19 that it came down to was what could they successfully do and 20 coupled with an economical standpoint, what they could 21 afford to do, given the dollars per volume to do it. That 22 kind of thing is going to drive what method you're going to 23 utilize, given that whatever. options are there c 24 acceptable.
25 Also, one of the things, as far as when you're --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
259 1 instead of pumping and replacing, if you're going to pump 2 it and have it treated and stabilize it and send it to a low 3 level waste site, then you've got that consideration to take 4 into account. I think the end point of where this waste is 5 going to end up is going to drive what technology you're 6 going to use as much as anything else.
7 MS. LEWIS Okay. David?
8 MR. MINNAR: Just adding to what Bob just 9 mentioned, it may be very difficult to answer the question, 10 are technologies limiting as they exist now, apart from 11 answering first the question, what are the numbers. You 12 certainly would reach a point of diminishing returns, 13 dep;nding on what the number is, in terms of applying 14 technology. I think for most reasonable risk limit ,,
15 standards that might be bandied about, there might not be 16 that much limitation on technology. If that's pushed to the 17 hilt such as might be conceived by the approach called 18 return to background, if you take that to the extreme, I 19 would guess that the technology that exists today is limited 20 in achieving that particular regulatory approach.
21 MS. LEWIS: okay. If there's no other comments 22 along those lines, let me pose one other question in regards 23 to technology. Some regulatory schemes have a technology 24 forcing aspect to them. In other words, they're designed to 25 provide incentives for the development of new technologies ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 _ ___ - -_ _ _ -
260 1 to address problems. To what extent, if any, do think it 2 might be desirable or appropriate to incorporate a 3 technology forcing sort of aspect into regulation in this 4 arena? Any thoughts on that? David?
5 MR. MINNAR: Let me just say that I believe in the 6 ALARA concept as currently embodied by NRC regulations. If 7 it were to extend into this area as well, you could have 8 some pretty good incentive, depending again on how well 9 enforced the ALARA limits might be followed up on by the-10 regulator. Certainly, there's always room for improvement, 11 and technology tends to do that over time, and that's what 12 ALARA is all about. So, if we envision the ALARA conct, t to 13 include the determination of the appropriate technologies, I 14 think that could go a long way. ,,
15 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Cards are not exactly leaping 16 up. I think I'm going to move to bring this to closure, and 17 I want to ask people to start thinking, number one, about 18 whether you have any other comments about-technology to wrap 19 it up, and number two, just any other comments in general 20 that may be dangling from earlier conversations today, 21 carlier discussions today. Richard?
! 22 MR. ALLENs Having. incentives for development of 23 technology certainly works for largu organizations like' doe 24 where they have the resources to do that. I'm not sure how l
l 25 you apply that on a licensee by licensee basis where ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
! Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 <
(202) 293-3950-
4 261 1 typically, the licensee who holds the material is not the 2 expert on technologies which would be used for concentrating 3 it or transforming it into some more stable state. So, I l 4 don't know how you make that work in practice.
5 MS. LEWIS: G:ay. Any other comments in regards 6 to just any aspect of technology capabilities? Mike?
7 MR. WEBER: One thing interesting to juxtapose 8 different positions, but I believe if the Agency set a 9 standard which was like a technology forcing standard, it 10 might play against the view of some that there ought to be 11 some risk basis for the standard itself, and that perhaps 12 the resources that would be invested otherwise in developing 13 these new technologies and applying them through an ALARA or 14 modified process, could be better spent in other elements of ..
15 society.
16 Now, certainly, I acknowledge the concerns that 17 have been expressed by others that there's a limitad purview 18 that the NRC has, but it would be interesting to hear 19 feedback on that aspect.
20 MS. LEWIS: Robert?
21 MR. OWEN: One of the things that's going to limit 22 particularly what was required in the way of technology is 23 that it may not be feasible frca a technological standpoint 24 to decontaminate to a given limit. One example of that was 25 an accelerated facility that was contaminated with a large i
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l i
262 ]
l 1 amount of trillium. There were eight-foot thick concrete l l
2 valls which are very porous, and it happened to be that that l 3 was a project that I was assigned to, to decontaminate-it. ]
4 Even with a team of health physicists and technicians, it S took us a year-and-a-half after $1.5 million, and even than', ;
6 we had to go before the NRC for permission for a given 7 level. If we were going to approach background, I would .
8 still-be there with my scrub brush. >
9 Getting back to the point of technology, there :
10 wasn't the technology at that point in time-to ;
11 decontaminate. I had'to do research on decon to present it i l
12 to the NRC for their approval,-prior to even embarking on 13 that project. So, we have to bo careful'about.saying you've 14 got to use the best available technology, especially'when it ,
15 doesn't even exist, then forcing it down to a level of 16 background. What'you're doing-is you're creating an entire 17 research project in and of itself, for the sake:of achieving .
18 a magic number.
19 MS. LEWIS: Carolyn?
20 MS. RAFFENSPERGERt My comment is not directed at
! 21 technology. It returns to something else.
22 MS.-LEWIS: Let me see if there's any other 23 comments in regards to-technology?_ Any additional questions L 24 from agency?
! 25 MR. RICHARDSON -I have one question,-and'it has .
L :
L ANN RlLEY & : ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
- 1612 K. Street, N.W.,3 Suite 300 .
Washington,- .D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
- 1. ~ m: __ .- . _n_ _ . _ _ _ .. _
263 1 to do with the medical community, so maybe I'll address it 2 to Henry. My question is about the appropriateness of 3 applying site specific standards approach, like either of 4 the first two, for facilities like hospitals of which there 5 are many thousands that are identical?
6 MR. ROYALt I don't think that the decommissioning 7 problem based by hospitals is a difficult problem, so I 8 don't think that whatever'you decide is not going to be a 9 problem for hospitals. The problem for the medical 10 community is that we don't get radio-pharmaceuticals from 11 out of the air. We get radio-pharmaceuticals from people 12 who have nuclear reactors. So, the way that the medical 13 community is hurt is that if you make it economically 14 impossible for producers to produce radioactive materials ,,
15 that we use in medicine, then that's how the public is going 16 to suffer, that those materials would no longer be 17 available.
18 MS. LEWIS: Mark?
19 MR. DORUFF: I'd like to respond to Mike's 20 question and add to what Henry just said. We are speaking 21 on behalf of a radio-pharmaceutical manufacturer. It's truo 22 that we are in the business to make money. I'm not certain 23 how profitable our business really is. I don't think we can 24 be prepared to some of the larger conglomerate 25 pharmaceutical manufacturers, but I do know that the ,
ANN R11Y.& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 l
264 1 resources that we have available through our profits are 2 somewhat limited. If we're going to be confronted with the 3 situation where we need to spend $500,000 to decommission a 4 hot cell as opposed to sinking that money into R&D, well we 5 might be able to generate monoclonal antibodies to fight 6 cancer, you know, I'll leave that up to the public to 7 decide, where is.the cost of the diminishing returns that 8 we're experiencing in-our decommissioning efforts.
9 MS. LEWIS: Carolyn?- Is your card up?
10 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: But not about technology.
11 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Any last questions as far as 12 technology? Comments? Robert?
13 MR. HOLDEN: I'll state once again that I'm not a 14 technical person. I went to Washington, D.C. to learn how ,,
15 to use the computer. It's not so much on the technical 16 aspects but on process, the technical mechanism that we're 17 meeting en this transition crew. I think that, just as we 18 who are sitting here at the front end of this 19 decommissioning process, that there should be room to allow 20 them give a tax penalty mechanism for oversight.
21 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Let's move off of technology 22 explicitly, and I'll ask if you have any other comments left l
l 23 over, questions left over from our earlier discussions, now l
l 24 would be a good time to raise them. We'll do that before we 25 go to public commnnt. We will be getting to you guys.
l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
265 l
1 Carolyn? l 2 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I cornered Don Cool at the l 1
3 break, but I want to say on the record what I told him, and 4 that's about the separate standard for the environment or 5 for human health. Whether we have a separate st'andard or 6 not, I think what we need to do is have a biocentric 7 standard rather than an anthropocentric standard. Whether I 8 know what the shape of that would look like or the exact 9 words in the paragraph, I'm not sure. I do think a 10 biocentric standard is one which will be more durable. I 11 think it's the wave of the future. I think it's what the 12 environmentalists are thinking and what's driving policy in 13 Washington. So, I would argue for a blocentric standards 14 and rule rather than an anthropocentric standard or rule.
15 MS. LEWIS: And how would you do that.
16 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: I promised to give some 17 thought to that, but not this late in the afternoon.
18 MS. LEWIS: Okay. We'll try to remember to come 19 back to you tomorrow.
20 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: No, I'll write it.
21 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Mike?
22 MR. WILLIAMS: I guess what I'd like to do is 23 maybe point out the obvious and say it in a little bit 24 different way, and that is, of course, as I've indicated 25 already, I think that a risk based standards is She ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
266 1 appropriate approach. I think the key thing to remember 2 here is that when you decommission a facility, then you are 3 establishing by that process, where is the risk going to be 4 distributed? If you decide to leave it in place at a 5 certain level, then you've left that contamination there, 6 and then the population in that location is exposed to the 7 risk. If you decide to clean it all up, " clean it up," then 8 really, you're transferring that risk from that vicinity to 9 a low level waste facility or wherever else you take the lo " clean up material" to. You're not eliminating risk.
11 You're not going to zero risk. There's no such thing as 12 zero risk, as I said earlier.
13 So, the goal or the standard ought to be to 14 minimize risk, and I would go back to what lienry said much, ,,
15 much earlier about total risk, and I think you can and 16 should look at total risk. That risk includes the risk 17 associated with transportation of the material, the risk 18 associated with the actual activities involved in 19 decommissioning, and the risk associated with the level of 20 contamination. Then you also have to look at the population 21 at risk where the facility is versus the population at the 22 low level waste facility and so forth.
23 So, you're not climinating risk. You're not 24 putting at zero risk. You're trying to minimize the risk 25 relative to the population and the environmental ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suito 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
267 1 surroundings. I think that's the important thing to keep in 2 mind. You do have to look at total risk, not just the risk 3 due to radioactive materials.
4 MS. LEWISt Frank?
5 MR. RESCEK: I'd also like to follow up on the 6 risk limit issue. I think it's important to recognize that 7 with a risk limit, you avoid the concerns or the issues over 8 half-lives. It doesn't really matter what the radionucleide 9 is. It doesn't matter what the half-life is.- It doesn't 10 matter what the site characterization is. What matters is 11 is that licensees across the U.S. will be able to clean.up 12 the sites and get them to a level to be below and be below 13 the risk base limit and apply ALARA to get it as low as 14 possible.
15 What's important, then, in that we have good 16 models that can use the site characterizations so that we 17 could properly insure that when we calculate what the 18 concentrations need to be in the soll or the concentrations 19 or the surface limits on the structures, and indeed, those 20 surface contamination levels, do insure that the risk limit 21 is met.
22 MS. LEWIS: Okay, thanks. Carolyn?
23 MS. RAFFENSPERGER: Oh, I'm sorry.
24 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Chris?
25 MS. TREPAL: I just wanted to kind of reiterate ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
268 1 what a couple of other folks had said regarding the fox 2 guarding the hon house. In terms of site characterization, 3 modeling, measurement, et cetera, based on my experience 4 with my site, I'll just tell you what I've road. I've read 5 all of the license applications, where my licensing said 6 they generated no radioactive waste. I don't know who at 7 the NRC was reading their license, but what they were doing a with their waste as driving it across the street and-tipping 9 their load in a residential area. We've had two failed 10 decontamination efforts. Again, everybody waited until 11 everything was said and done, and then problems were found 12 at the right end. So, I really think-that when we're 13 looking at all of these various components, that there needs 14 to be a lot of checks and double checks. We can't just ,,
15 leave it to the licensee and whatever he says, goes. I 16 think that's where we've seen a lot of problems at our site.
17 MS. LEWIS: Okay. Susan?
18 MS. HIATT: I think another question we have to 19 consider in terms of total risk, risks to certain 20 populations to members of the public versus occupational 21 exposure, is it fair and reasonable to equate and give equal 22 weight to a done received by a member of the public versus-a 23 dose received by a person in an occupational situation. My
, 24 feeling is that it isn't because the person who is working l
l 25 in the nuclear industry chooses to do so, is receiving ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 ,
p (202) 293-3950
269 1 compensation for it, has specialized training and education 2 and protective clothing and equipment and dositeters. The 3 people out in the public do not have these things. They 4 don't have the benefits for taking the risk, and I think 5 that's something you might want to consider in terms of 6 allocating the total risk.
7 MS. LEWIS: David?
8 MR. KRAFT: I wanted to, I guess, share an idea in 9 terns of sort of a next step as to wher6 this process goec 10 or what this kind of thinking that's taking place here leads 11 to for me, and it ties into a comment that Carolyn made 12 earlier in terms of the notion of source reduction as some 13 sort of a thing we should be looking at, not just site 14 remediation through the decon process, regardless of what ,,
15 standard gets selected here, whether it's back to the 16 background level or some sort of a risk limit or something.
17 I would hope that NRC would consider these 18 exercises as the framework for a consideration of future 19 nuclear facilities. In other words, we are in the position 20 we are today in this room perhaps because not enough ,
21 consideration was given 40 years ago to the types of 22 situations that would be created over time. Well, we've got 23 40 years of background now behind us, and depending on what 24 criteria you select on the basis of this process, that 25 should serve as some sort of guidelines for licensing a i
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L Coud Repoders
! 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
270 1 future facilities.
i 2 For example, if you're going to pick a standard 3 that requires you to go to background, it's going to put a :
4 different engineering constraint on a future nuclear reactor ;
i 5 site than what we did 40 years ago when we builti Dresden one !
6 and Yankee Road, sites like that. So, I'm hoping that not ;
7 only will this process attempt to satisfy your immediate 8 need for resolving the decommissioning or the error 9 situation you have, but-serves as some sort of guideline for 10 future nuclear licensing, so that they will put more 11 attention at the beginning to minimize the amounts of decon 12 you have to do in the future.
13 HS. LEWIS: Okay. Before we move -- okay, Jack?
14 MR. HONEY: Your point's well taken, but I think ,,
15 that there's some things that have happened in the last six 16 months to a year that have pretty effectively done that 17 already, and that is the fact that it costs about $300 a 18 cubic foot to dispose of a little' waste. So, there's a 19 rather intensive incentive there already, I think.
20 MS. IEWIS: Chris, is your card up? Okay, Don?
21 MR. COOL: To pursue what you were proposing, I 22 think we can intuitively agree, certainly, that reducing the 23 source is something that we all ought to be striving for.
24 What I would be very interested in hearing from a regulatory 25 perspective if I'm in the position, as I will be, of in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.- C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
271 1 end having to craft something which people will need to
- 2. comply with in some way, and I will have to have something 3 which my regional people will go out and inspect against, 4 and my licensing people will need to examine a license 5 application against.
6 I'd be very interested to hear either now or in 7 your comments after you've had a chance to think about it a 8 little bit, as to how I might craft a requirement or 9 standard of some way which would get to that sort of thing 10 which would encourage facilitations, the word has been used, 11 source reductions over the course of time, in a way that we 12 could actually look at that would be implementable. This 13 gives in a sense something to think about for one of the 14 cross cutting issues tomorrow, which is in relation to the 15 regulatory framework. It almost brings to mind the Great 16 Northwest Orient Airlines ad on TV, which I simply love, 17 where the guy picks up the phone about four times and he 18 picks up the phone and says, "How am I going to do that?"
19 MS. LEWIS: okay. We do need to move on. I'll 20 take one more comment, and then we'll go to public comment.
21 Richard?
22 MR. ALLEN: A very quick and dirty thing you might 23 consider is to start tying your surety requirements to 24 design criteria. If it looks like it's going to be more 25 expensive to clean up later, then the surety requirements ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.' O. 20006 (202) 293 3950
272 1 ought to be there to recover it. That's quite an incentive.
2 MS. LEWIS: Any comments or questions from the 3 audience?
4 AUDIENCEt Dick Hawes from NUS. I'd like to tie 5 with Mr. Johnson and Dr. Cember, and try to put'forth to the 6 group here, about 20 years ago, I had the opportunity to be 7 a field superintendent on the field decommissioning of a 20 8 megawatt pressurized water reactor in Alaska. We had the 9 technology. We had the money. We had the staff. We could 10 ship fuel. We could ship liquids. Our site criteria I 11 think was 55, I'm not sure. It was a graphic design, and I 12 believe it was 80 picocuries at the site. We did that. We 13 moved soil for weeks. We knew at the time the background 14 upstream and around that area was higher than what we left 15 that site at. Last summer, the Corps asked me to 16 reconstitute some of these activities at the site during the 17 decommissioning and before decommissioning.
18 Last summer -- the Corps at the time of the 19 decommissioning -- the Corps of Engineers was the 20 responsible government agency. The Corps at the time 21 committed to a biannual survey of the site to insure it's 22 still meeting its criteria. Last summer, some of the soil 23 around the site was higher than 80 picoeuries. Last summer, 24 the Corps moved soil and constructed another wall just to 25 meet that criteria. The background and the issue of meeting-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud- Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 '
(202) 293 3950
i 273 '
1 criteria forever is a very, very serious thing. The point i 2 here -- this decommissioning is 20 years old. Everyone hera l 3 says we had 4 -- we had the technology. We knew we could meet it going 5 into the decommissioning. We couldn't meet it 20 years 6 later.
7 MS. LEWIS: Any other comments?
8 AUDIENCE: Eric White. The primary activity that 9 needs to be governed by the standards of what you discussed 10 this afternoon as far as your technical capability is your 11 sampling. How can it be cross calibrated without a great 12 cost to any of the individual contractors so that they could 13 be within a network of something that we know is comparable, 14 as measured that way. ,,
15 MS. LEWIS: Thank you. Any others?-
16 MR LESNICK: Thank you very much. I greatly 17 appreciate the amount of energy everyone has put into this.
18 It's late today. We've worked hard. Imt's cover a few 19 things for this evening and then take a look ahead for 20 tomorrow.
21 You'll recall, please that this evening we've got, 22 I believe, at least two videotapes that will become 23 available here starting at 8:00. Wes Holly has one tape, 24 and he'll be here to help walk you through that, and I 25 believe Chris Trepal will be here at 8:00 and kind of-talk ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 274 1 you through her tape as things are going along, too. I 2 might be a good opportunity. Stop back at eight, if you're 3 interested. Bring your own popcorn.
4 Today, we started a process of trying very hard to 5 take a look at different ways of advantages and' 6 disadvantages of different approaches. We're not even 7 halfway through that. Tomorrow, we're going to continue 8 this discussion of cross cutting issues. At 8:00, there 9 will be coffee out here, but we'll start the discussion at 10 8:30 around this table. Tomorrow, first thing off, we'll be 11 talking about how do the regulatory approaches, the 12 alternative regulatory approaches, relate to existing 13 federal, regional, state, local regulatory frameworks, and 14 how these things connect. I believe Allan talked about, for 15 example, linkage to Superfund, et cetera. So, we want to 16 talk about that for awhile.
17 We will also talk about costs and other 18 implementation considerations, anr?. we'll talk about waste 19 management implications. We will pick up other key issues 20 that we've accumulated over tir e, as well as the ones we've 21 listed here. So, as you can see, we've got a pretty full 22 day again tomorrow. I urge, particularly those around the 23 table, to take a look at the agenda. You've got an idea nov 24 of how we're going at this. You might give some 25 consideration of particular issues you're going to want to l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 L Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
275 1 raise or bring up, whether they're cross cutting types or 2 other aspects so that you come in as4 prepared as you 3 possibly can be. I urge you to huddle with colleagues, 4 people you don't know, to come in and really make that 5 discussion as useful as possible.
6 Also, I urge NRC and EPA staff to give some 7 further thought, in addition to perhaps the questions that 8 are raisod here on the agenda, other things you'd really I
9 like to get out of this. As you all have seen, they're 10 struggling with what are the different ways of getting at 11 this and pros and cons, and so this is your opportunity to 12 really get as much out of this as possible with the 13 expertise we've got around the table.
14 We're going to break now. I'd like to ask the NRC,,
15 and EPA staff to just stay for one minute. I know they want 16 to catch up with many of you, so just give us ono minute so ,
17 we can pick a time to get together this evening, just to 18 make sure we know what questions we want to get at tomorrow,.
19 and then you all can go out for dinner. If-you want dinner 20 suggestions for places close-by, can I point you towards the 21 concierge desk downstairs and the front desk. They've got a 22 long list, and I think they even have a printout they can 23 give you of restaurants that are available.
24 Barbara or connie, anything else you think we 25 ought to mention?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
E Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 -;
Washington, D. C. 20006 ;
-(202) 293 3950-
276 -
1 Ms. LEWIst Thanks for a good day.
2 MR.-LESNICK 'We really sppreciate'the hard work j 3 today,-folks. Thank you.
4 (Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the hearing was 5 concluded.) .
6 7
8
.. 9 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ,
20 21
~
22 23 24
'25
-v ANN RlLEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court - Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D; C. 20006
.(202) 293 3950
P L
i REPORTER'S CBRTIFICATE This is to certify that'the attached proceed-ings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of NAME OF PROCEEDING: Site Cleanup Criteria Workshop DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Chicago,.Ill.-
~
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of.
the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced _to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
/: .
f-
%,,i/43 %
(
Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
i i
l l
E , -. . . . _ -. -
- a. .- .. -- ; .
f t
t
- NRC SITE CLEANUP CRITERIA WORKSHOl$ ,
l January 27 28,1993 :
Chicago, Illinois y i
Participant Usl Citizen / Environmental Organizations Daniel Balocca Chris Trepal - .
Co Founder Co Director ,
Thorium Action Group Earth Day Coalition 'j i 29 W131 Blair . 3606 Bridge Avet.ue West Chicago, IL _ 60485 Cleveland, OH 44113 -
708 293 7449 216-281 6468 1 Fax: 312 357-0323 c/o Annette Yeager Fax: 216-% I 0004 Susat. L. Hiatt Tribal Otranizations '
Director Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. Robert Holden -
8275 Munson Road Project Director .
. Mentor, OH 44060-2406 Nuclear Waste Project 216-255 3158 National Congress of American Indians Fax: 216 255 3158 (call first) 900 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE .
Washington, DC 20003 ;
David A. Kraft 202 546-9404'-
President 301808 5238 (h)-
Nuclear Energy Information Services Fax: 202 546 3741 P.O. Box 1637 . .
Evanston, IL 602 % 1637 Local Government 708-869 7650 Erv Ball Supervisor :
Carolyn Raffensperger Illinois Environmental Council Environmental Contingency Unit' 930 Dunlop Cuyahoga County Board of Health Forest Park,IL 60130 1 Playhouse Square 708 366-5535 1375 Euclid Avenue Fax: 708 366-5535 Cleveland, OH 44115 216-443 7520 -
Mary P. Sinclair, Ph.D. Fax: 216-443-7537 ~
Co Chair Don't Waste Michigan -J. Donald Foster 5711 Somerset Drive- City Administrator Midland, MI 48640 City of West Chicago ,
l 517-835 1303 P.O. Box 488 L Fax: 517-835'1954 475 Main Street West Chicaga,IL 60185.
708-293 2212 ~
l- Fax: 708 293 3028 L ,
I i '.
j P , , , - - . - _ - .. ,,,(,,,eg.,,_w ...,,m,p ,,, o n . - , . - .,
9
- Professional Societv/ Standard Settinc U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Orcanizations Francis X. (Chip) Cameron lierman Cember, Ph.D. Spec lal Counsel for Pub!!c Liaison Health Physics Society and Waste Management The Technological Institute Office of the General Counsel Northwestern University U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Evanston,IL 60208 11555 Rockville Pike 708-491 4008 Rockville, MD 20852 Fax: 708 49l-4011 301 504-1642 Fax: 301-5 % 1657 Robert G. Thomas, Ph.D.
American Nuclear Society Donald A. Cool, Ph.D.
ER-203 Branch Chief 9700 S. Cass Avenue Radiation Protection and Health Effects Branch Argonne,IL 60439 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 708 252-4167 Division of Regulatory Applications Fax: 708-252-2959 Washington, DC 20555 -
301-492 3785 U.S. Environmental Protection Acency Fax: 301 492 3866 Allan C. Richardson Michael F. Weber-Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Section Leader, Regulatory Issues Secion U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Low-Level Waste Management &
MC-6602 J Decommissioning 401 M Street, SW U.E. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20460 Mall Stop SE4 202-233 9290 Washington, DC 20555 Fax: 202-233-9629 30. 504-1298 Fax: 301 504-2260 Pamela Russell Office of Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MC-6603-J 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 202 233 9340 Fax: 202-233-9650
a l
p f*
f Enhanced Participatory Ralemaking on Radiological Criteriafor Decommissioning Decommis.sioning e Definition e Process ;
e : Facilities Michael Weber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking' Workshops 1993 a e v,- - - n ~ - -
Existing NRC Requirements 1988 Decommissioning Rule. covered:
e Planning and Process l e Financial Assurance -
- Recordkeeping e License Termination Procedures BUT NOT... Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning: ;
e : Decommissioning continues.using existing 1 guidance, criteria, and practices.
i i
B- * ., .w c- -eg. .
r L
Interested Parties
~
L Tribes .
d NC S ates ,
- Public EPA jicensee
~ i
! Locas. DOE Elected Officias areholders i
1
' i Environmental Groups
~ 1 Employees 1
1
_ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - - . ._- _ .:,m __ -_ ___ - . _ . . .. _ _ _ _l-- _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__2_
1 t
-a Case Studies L e Represent a range of actual decommissioning ;
projects at a variety.of stages under different- i programs
- e Indicate different radiological criteria used for each decommissioning project o Highlight practical issues associated withL decommissioning
_ wr1 l-+ e -
- 4- mm -
ULIStH VLil HEGl ' '4A IlON StitE1 Pleas 3 provid1 tha following inform: tion: -
N:me/ Title /Affilitation & Address . Phone Number Fax Number MMM lob Tio&(: cpi los /7io-ST7L/
I I PUeu Oec. 19c1c {AFYA Q Oc{g arq ga x wdFE w L cswa tums tC Pa,n A t(cuey e7o O 7eo-sc,c 7 C7o O W -
Pu.b nc. Aecs or4% "' ' Y acRufm' TIE /,ctcy xcosev a t K d .
Glm ellvn, 12. .
Rie6S3.>d" fesa oc.n r- ~70 I 7 b i I'I U 7 08 767 /uf
.Dist=re,a_ a y P gcy m NO3 ..
1sts ceos VL HEWER G Roue TL foye+ W.Ybi-n N. h#f]LfL~336{
A L .hfu S n . ]#S) 1 h' iT
Qen 9 m s . c.,, n .
N4Il&
Lt. Soy 51 S6ky7. sea % @b9'7'IES "SDwebe&europw*~^em aem ,t g Gihg/.
l (Gedigw,13ch '. *
- 9" W Git-10 @ D 4 3-7 a 7-
l %
b N @ %
s w- o
-) { o .h.
i y w n
m b 4
'to 4 '
)
E C T n 9 l b) b h b 4
- x ^ -f R-S -o n i 5-N' Q -A n ) >
s % N W 5- 8 o % id N
= e y r- y
$ $ m J * ^ h.
E 2 ? S E
s a
D b O E d 6
Y 5
b '
hi O
k If M
, C G N O t kk D M
,3x * -
4u #"
s g L di j '
li s g' d "
- 3. oo w M *'- < ( b 24
[N J
e k 5 3' k l o
)h (4 o 5 % MV43h e "e Ez sa 3
3 ,;
.it ; m ob ,
g ; ;e w o 3J p# a w .e,s 4
a o
u a ro s
$ea ge s.e %sk$ s-4sidvS- V)i *; si s = n og r t ( 0-- g n a 4-w.
e g wap"ed s ee p. c a . w e
1gos o k ,_,F*r ,u
} cq $yh g
a
,z 3 D
ggyg s$
w
- o. k,- zo 1 s o a_ o , o r, v ec - x N ' -
. . = ~ - . .. , ,
A g n .
. g- N .
o: s
'N % 'f; I -I -
- C% . .\
q
'Q' p
-j g.
y
-4
+
L.
u n' s.- P
-u p s.
E .
y s ay
. ,,' N o
d N w ww a n
+-
r c ,. w-g n D fr A D. =w R T.
i t(. '.,q - r g Q A \n 1 ; -
% y W - rt. h- A _Y. T jA
- g g b W.y
- t ;$ A cf .
^
%. R M
.t.
e te g
-o w -Q &
k :k V b xi y j w
It:
w w ,
ett O-1 E-5 e tq 2 i 8 q , J '3 ' < -
,$ k o g_:-g e. 3 s s t'
-$ (-- _
- ,a
.s .
g
- s. ti g n e
s s .;i .
w 4g$ s o
I2m V (; .
9 $v '>-j
- g. ggt m a OR :3g x e p+ > s .? X - :e n 1
p v,
-y t i-l
,3 4,by 4g y .A '((jNI k: oe $ g eN sg g x
, e 1 ?:..;a v. [$q ue$
,e nm g u+ .r2 4g 4 g4(g
"; 7 < t ' 'st E qs p;wAu 2 v. .
g jeg $ bw 3ir v i ,$ 4 s 1j gge n$ ggj 4}*?djf E' y (#eA' le 4 he m'3 % j
,e -awr-
n A ,y= t- FB -- 6 -=. +a e t
x g
- o-3:
?
- qY Q o . , m Q h y[ l W- -
w + + h+
3 g!
3 & 4 2 e.
l D g $ h' 4 w g N o %
9 N-3 l- w' y) 4 3
d A: N l 1 4 4 g ? $x 1 8 e s. e s .
2
~
- 6 y
5 h; .,
g
- fx '
. \,
p e
g m x y
a3 s
.g. hm2 1%
4; q ;
9 c % N i -g8 4 A -p 4 ,
i 4
%p g
- q. v4 ,g sh s
my w w)vQwy
'$a b ykkffkg$ hY $ sikk -
a =;s 2 ,.h+
cj %w>s s-o(4
~
g c
w( (c a -
- 1 w y D 'S 4 -$
me
, m, a:
. , . , . . ~ _ _ - - 4
% ')w
~
2 fe -
y t[
S t k a ~2 z 1
42 -
$, 9 8 C
a i M e Q
$ =
o 2 2 s s e
e N@ o 4 e
~
ti d S 9 s3gs .l-5 4 T-U N
$ hk -
k n c
s b h t$
h
?
2 R, N J
t 4 g
p D % ki i-J "1 L
.ii je ,
2 en 5
3 1
'g t
t*
g fE hE a
y e
'k (g A 5U M %a 3 5{n0 @B4e2 k*
m E $ ,
46y !
Sa 7w$ , 4I) l 1 ;i $e m n'01 $9% 3s a.
e x - a%3r '
-s v 2t 6sd49 %y E \!! o { Mx' i @ yg DE t i, kN 1 v T d{ \
I l jg20 N T{
i
@3 a U k{ b j!,d b 6 4 r $h $ Eh $kk
h a,
O 2' -
a r-e (b
4 6
& M 0 es
= 6 Q b
% i R 4 7 7 w w t g %
- e No 4 O m
- w ~ d -(6 s
- m <~~ u p- m m v>
v U er
- c. g u.
D h
- s g.
(
8
= A N
$ ' h
$ D 5 s A u 8 Q
o 3 : o
% eb h a d
- )
Y k # YiY ey = A 8
a i en 4e
}w wg,I 5 s
i 88o k9) d tw a
u u
f@ i'd \w$$ [
z i v)
XQ OV o]O T ("
Sa d g
>d
.s , i
- g3Eikk 43
- x4t((o P lit ;lld li
- e gs'# se'id 3 t v i
a %2L <x 4 1 a3% ,
8 ee*
e .e sas w.
n be (
S$
s dd ed t st.3 e
GM d:s tu:s:
b s<
4 2
x 4[ v lo g-gx s s *s 3
H L
e.
our-
~
- w U _g s1tg $ ki s"' "c s AS24 @ d 0;f 4 %d
.[8 t __ -
O 'SER LfER REG' RA TIOrj SifEET
- 4 Pl; s2provid2 th2 foll:;winginformation:
N:me/ Title /Affilitation & Address Phone Number Fax Number B4Kanise K'. 7)4.vm>yr <c (Yu)zzi- y (-
/fseie,st r%ncy. r
& ,oca J rgotyexy, /n <-
30o c nep w r u s v.
!.4) c 2e 2- 2n3 -o m M 73f- yt/3 pg,4 ,,g ut,,e (JSCGa (77(. T S T-( u v it- p c wh b $ 0 mpivennM 3 0'- [" W' /" Yl' BD)nw oter, brinriae nesTeerer og&eca t
omet
- Fucane meron RtcwArw-FR c-
,v& w. De. 20crr 7db4r+ F. %W t%tuncicrcd4 Speutbf etuamcco t3 c,,
if43M 6wmejoyTr3pp 12d. 34- 53o- 2. I'? O 314- 530 -257 fo Ches44rfid; Ro (s 30 t'7
M h.
N h
i N
- d , i t c4 i
- I e4
m 5
u NO h 4 & t w
i %}
m b o a m
.4 W
~
=
e 1 a 4 e
$be e- c4 q
- == % ,
6
, .s Q 4
E
=
8 Q
b-e4 k
m g
t.
N o en A @c.
E N
3
@ g v E
y - a,
~
f.
s N
[Q o'- M $s
- = s s
$- '1 h ?
+ i E
s o,n I E:wA rs.
0- -
ts w %a n s4:
o '* Y g &w 'Ew w
E S- 4 s
s '8 c 63
.k ad >
o 4' $ -i <
A K y&
lf "h s
9 x d
s' .J W
s 3 s, 4 d 5$7d v> 'e 3 Xj id 1-.$
w db Mi di 5
k "s kk 5$
$r- 'Ds l ;V $ k q Nb 2 q" 2'
- d h' a
n w a .y 8 o ~
M W.ec e -
ej .
=
H s 4 s s w3 s IadAe l- S E= a kl 7% 9 3 N d A .d, 3 '
2d o m( 40 r a-
.c g a, s i
!g g b h%$ i l c 3 I f @s %.6hk c ~ 1 =q L .je g d.dEd
-.0090 g.pg .{ s As <hro@QQ t-
~
y ;.
~
- ~K;--
% -4,r -
g; i
4
- g. ,
i i
, ke L 4
%+
T E
a s
m{ }- .,
k h I j y ;g 2
a j $ ,
d 6d I.: $
+
- c 1 a E 'i k 2 ?
i j d & D 4 0;:
3 3
2 9
}
. P 8 y
+
3 L
=
.) $
a u %
r-y g) g g j g
,$y 7 e
! (,s 7aady y o
.o e 2 -
g' 54 9
14 s#
d& &
k
% If gn g 44 1i fl 3 pk ly a T AC.1 12 4 ,1: v M 2 3g >
kb hhh*b h, Ib 5 ' khe
U A _
'i,.
y
,x .
a w :
- p.
~- _M- y _.
- g m -- _-
q.
_Q -_ ;
g fi- j 7
)
9 d
i f $ k L x
& ~ t e y
- 4 'a . A n G-N [
- hu e- 2
- n -
E k)-
2 x n 8 >
o 4 e
- v: ,
y a w M A[ ( ,
- tr' ~ .g 4
' -N' -Q i ,
Q
.M; g 4- o o .
o t g x ^% V- f f Q: Q .
i f.
}r
~
} -
lll d
Si g 8 {1 sr s z n
= t
=
.W )& 4 O
W ~
h i y :...
N q -
g ;
(Y w $ t X j
n-Q N
y'o %. .. -
Mg -$ 7
- - 4
~
&. yqxw?w a w ,s .g ,5 s B
- .s NO *-0 17 73es' cJ
{igy
'R y t
]
y .] g (N je[3 GfA(( g;[g g c
ag u oe m,ex s1 14Rh a %e .
2ese 4,a,a a -
ey T:
t ty .
2,gu o eM 9= g }=
N= d
,4 $ $
1-@ 3d %-
u d erg (N5m 5
Q[$ r@:~
jj 9 '
fs g se nJ
c-4 i O l 9 b
& m 1.
t 4 -
A r
. a M a
E Nd @s /t i
- @ % N
- iL %
~ m -9 %
e M &
N k h r
- x%
? h a 4 W
> 2 e u m t
- S n. & r-6
- 4 M r4
$ 9 ~N m N ,
5- {8 ds. } ,d
- Q s A 4 e9 e
R 3 2 e
?
5
- h t
5 -
! ) v C d' My
& a c-
% L td 7
A ]- }r
-ea 8
g 4-3 4 er "3 3 4
S X 23 w
c T2 e.
s z'e kw if eG
.% m( *. A G 4. Ie2y $ I9 p j 3 (/) ,
i!{
e g
s a
x v) 20 4 3>. hr- 4 --1,m-h
-tsc m' F [h g Gy
} 1 dc g~y g' E m g, r
~
j/;!
< g. r2 s
e -J' 1.
r h,%QH <[A ty d
8 y41 w u e ens 90.u:eO >E .e 's a%
a %4 . c. 4 9 17el- Mg i t ag o -
21 % MMR1 y Nd Y \0Y
'a2 hi <
S a: !
,me@q 4 o (,
. A o s3 e S ~ 7 m (% > V{s.
I f 4 &
O $~ -I ro m > t h
a n & "
! 1 k m I
%w
~ & R e m d w t
e d s Q s m O r A m b-w e
- o q A \ V b .o ~
s k E H %q h h f i g >
n d- E A W ,
= 4 s n
y e d -00 e o s s s s ~
f b , -d-I N
k 6^
& Y g
e .;E
~
- x t
% - i 5 Ag o N' (s qw
- t .
_I ' ) -
/j
- n^
%g-.
k (i s s
y N 8s xv
- s k, h D Cp 2 D 4 N -1 .< t \ otQ m y
d 4 kk
,p N jC g
L j e
e Ed1 s $$w/'o%
s E3d 2
0 w JSli wa i f; '
s gd-e hs
$M as4 'Q b 1
- e AM
- w Q g (u s tn 36 g ~g o e-a3 w s ..
y . es s e g Oc.3vp R! _
uBg y
a ; s t ,u .juw w 1,: N ag *1 s,u c ict 1 -0 s 4 2 -
3 f
$$ kN d5 "
?
.- ODSERVER REG l TA TION SHEET Please provide the following information: .
Name/ Title /Affilitation & Address Phone Number . Fax Number llarold Sckson Q3I+)771-S%5~ (31V)
SowA. GJueucof M 145ag
% keuls H o L5t7s' 0(DIC/L Y Al .-D, }]hgt=g " N' "! TWS"~WW Alc,t, .Sinaso Ak'os' De7:1-htviEscIcne JVitclERK' 3cc/syy .
.555JVff(EWS/Mc77on] '
I A&bWtys fAA"K, [1- dcS~W PAot CoTM cort nosw eA.s -rA E.bsW (o. 3. tz - Z8 9 - 3,91 o ,n t - 7_9 9 - 4M o$
t' o. say 16 9 frr1 12.37 E.
&>o 61 o - o l L. 7 C4 tm a at -
gam Lu A s. b .
c.ommouweActto Ct>tso u (31 0 7 9 4 ' E 9 9 Ccamewu: A 1tcNS Sc*decs , 58FNw (3tt) 294 -3 6 O O.
P r3 15or 76 7 catenGoore c ' Go ' *! O l.
_ u.
tM
tn 9 rat Twmal
'N0lYf f0R 5l Saving for Retirement The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires utilities gradually to put aside as much rus $135 minion for each of their Closm, g C.osts .
nudcar plants to cover the msts of disman-ar deco ==i$sioat"r."ia rovernment
. parlance. But NRC offidals acknowledge Nuclear Utilities Face ; that this sum is far short of the real amount neced: they say iney wiii soon issue shanly higher estimates of how much Immense Expenses
""4i"",Td * ***r '" *""d d
- P In Dismanth.ng Plants A recent Stanford University study sug -
reis that utiitties shouid aiready have accumulated a total of 113 billion to have Customers and Shareholders - enough for eventualplant dismantling, but !'
me NaC esumates mit only n bunon hu 1
Face Years of Fighting costir nepain been stashed so far. When Portland Cen- t eni 5"tr5c ca la **= *be"Y *a- :
Over Bearif 8 il'e Burden **5'""'*"'"*'6"*" nounced plans eart>er this month to close
' rymbol of the problem. There were no acci- nu 5mwned Trelaa nudear riant
- dents here, no radiation leaks. no alarms utility's colfers contained only 3". of the t' Respimtorsand Rubber Boots * $438 million estimated to be its share of
,ty,j,*pg,d*""5;,[,
,y 3 g, hen
. wucJ,a#nti"'
p trs. il try to The company figures the plant actually d mayu g,costs.}t , n(the f
- By Roarst Jorrxsox was in operation only abou' 15?. of the reguistory bMile that may take years. I And ANr# oc RourricNac t'.me. Matt stutz, a spokesman for the Rising Estimates su/f arpenm e/ Tun wa66 stamat hman.6 The worst news is yet to come. Some d4.t work."sm WW **Our nudear plant FORT ST VRAIN. Colo. - Nudear - utilities are already raising estirnates power has caused utilities so many head- - Fort St. Vrain was the first and only of anticipated dismantling costs far higher aches over the years that some are ready helium-cooled commercial reactor in the than those forecast by the NRC. For to just walk away from it. But they can't U.S. The rest are water cooled, including example. American Dectric Power Co..
even do that. the other 14 that have closed earlier than based in Columbus Ohio, recenny in-Retiring old plants is turring out to planned. Public Service of Colorado points creased the dismant!!ng forecast for its be such a challenge that the visitors out that the last straw that (sused it to two nudear units, whose combined 2.200-center at a plant here, wl'!ch once told ekse Fort St. Vrain was a problem com-
= megawatt capacity is seven tirees that of
' schoolchildren about the marvels of atomic mon la many water cooled planta: cracks in the reactor's steam tubes.'
Fort St. Vrainf to a sum Ln the range of power. now entertains engineers who 1583 million to 51.1 billion - compared with come from as far away as Japan to study . The relatively small 330 megawatt a gp39 estimate of !340 million.
the hugely costly and complex process of Fort St. Vrala plant cost $224 miluon to SimHarfy. Nebraska Pubile Power Dis-dismantlement + = butto in the ISMS. Taking it apart safety trict, based tn Columbus. Neb., more than Fort 51. Vrain is the first fully opera" will cost 1333 miluont under an agreement tripled the dismantling-cost forecast for its tional commercial riuclear plant to be with state regulators, the utittty's cus-tomers will sut! be helping to pay for the g34. megawatt nudear plant last year to taken apart piece by piece. Its owner, $1.15 billion.
Public Service Co. of Colorado, is among - pgang s demise in the year 2005.
- L.arter-than expected costs from early Moreover, the day of reckoning is far
- the gTowing ranks of utt!!ty compa0les now closer for many utilities than they imats facing a harsh reality: Not only are some dismantilng also loom for many of tha 110 remaining U.S. nuclear plants in the U.S., ined when they built their plants. Nu-nudear plants too expensive to run, but 18 clear facillues are Ikensed by the NRC to may cost more to take them ' apart, in threatening some utilities with huge bills for which they are utterly unpreparad. operata for a supposed 40 year ufe cycle,
- today's dollars than it cost to bul'd thtmin but the 15 plants closed so far were open for the first place. an average of only 12.7 years: Fort St.
lt ts a painfullesson - painful for the Vrain ran for 10. And with the average
- companies, for their shareholders and for perkilowatt cost of running a nuclear their rate payers. Nudear plant disman- plant now edging h!gher than the cost of a Utng, says James Greene, a uulities con- coal-fired plant. Department of Energy sultant at the accounting firm of Arthur officials say privately that 25? of the Andersen & C s.,ls "the big begy out there rernalning reactors may be closed in the waiting."
next dnade fc/ economic reasons. That means utibiles such as Public Service of -
Colorado. which planned a deliberate par.e ,
Please hrn la Page A7, Cblumn I
. , s
- . g Tile WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY, JA?fUARY 25.1953 A7 e * *
- Closing Costs Many Utih* ties Will Stomeday Face Tsdo s tsamurner coimset. Str. B:ss.
me w- r--
the lengthy plananng of every move la
- - - - - durmg dismanshng as a radianos shiens.
c.s,ome,s a,out ers ,ta s _ts. sa,5 s. en neer w-sut .tm utmses >~ ~ _- ,a-.e I,.ated . , - - r_- - -
Huge Expense for Dismantling Nuclear Power Plants D on Warethbou,rg, n-s. - ,ta-S the cheel .-eftgtneer.
e.
about diammethng plants. says. "Tou seed u f-r - et , - Usteld ad s-,dmanal amountss- of water it)os peoneer thrcettin St. Vraia, asked jobs that wedd be simt;te in a fossdimet - wash.ng Omhmued htme first Ftve would become "too rMsp 5 meter." and that the plant ce called something etse to piant. Sorne&es youl have to W gi,, gg,, thing. 3 quaranhned tsundry has of saemg ecremmushunteg funds over for sougheed standards for coal plants. But gg,e the fam4y from embarrassment been set op to wasa up to Es underes a en!y eight years smce President Osen- by the urne the plant opened la 1978 snart up reacters to practice, so yes due't de< aces, are being caught short. Inwer had wa*+d a makeshift **magte Aa carty pamphlet about Fort $t. weste t!me es the real thang." day for Ee three years er as the project is
_au Sirret Cnalysts as y the ut!!!!)r* in- concerns about safety and waste dhposal Vraba put maintenance requerements at esperset to sane.
usad" to open the mallon e int commer- had long since reybc rd the rosy scenartos. actese diaman(Eng is made toughee diss!ry should have confreeted the em cial testscr scar Pittsburgh. Walt Disney bitte more than a two weet refueling stint by the plant t!ctigas, which cram 45 the Yee wash a3 thest suits aad ctenaicas 48 Fort 54. ifrata, those concera6 trans- frvasa that water. Thest you cut up the wash-mornk restity of decommissioning tong fmblished a nudeat pnmer cm3rd "Our annually. to reality. the plant sat useless sensitive matena! Into the srnanest peist ago. Ta be Ikensed to use nurtear perwer. lated into mounting costs. leg machtne and the drier and pack them Ricad me Atom." Imhty industry brw for snonths at a (Lme. la 1968. the %btlc Me spres to krnst radluacts,e contamana' nunuca had to file plans showing tiow thry Pwbhc Servire et Gera4e had origi- service Comraissaan of Coeurado stopped lasste steef boses. Tedchas up the finer chures depkted owlest power matsnr me many planned se operate the plant mth 14 tion. "This is hut, swenty worn by people would retuc an c,bsolete power plant sste Arctic Inalmy enough M a 6curtst to sun- the ur'Isty frera charging for Fort St. wearing protective sedts. respirators and underneath wt ere se washer and dryee'
- prtsune condnaon. Itut they dwta's have worsers but the number twded 50 tot Vrate's power untet It got costs under embber boots." says bit.12Geardia. "' Pro
- w,,,, mays James Krause, a Westant-bathe on ae keteg awping a tropkal even t>ctore it opened Then the wort force J; calculait the espertes cost of doteg so, datak evntrol. Three years later faced with a dentivtty will go way down es these house Electric Cury. engtacer . ^ 1at balkoned agsla, to 837. under the public Fort St. Vrata."The tast thing he the bosss and fewer man a deren ut6 tics have made I serunay that developed sher the ThfM IWe-year repair job on the plant's couimg jeba."
surb esHmates pdhc. 'II " **E system, the utthty gace up an$ etuned the the Cettn counser you used as fest pery-I Mue Island putte at accidettt. At Frrt St. Vraia, the worters are thuer. and you bury that, sne."
The fir.ancial f acts af purtear de- Ms. Says Duane Wman, as plate.
fladkng that nothing ts sienple.Just fettlng comrnissioning by mtht!cs wm usher ta na 85 "U p Plenty of Ammonliion Company efflctals twfled their splom pW SerTke af Cobwade Sgures &
era of le"tthy terutatory barites over how to the pa e of Ener arress to some of the radioacGwe areas of wfR take 3 mienths Irern start as fin 6th.
MranwN1a. the plant was gNieg ks to delay dismanatag .Jr 68 years, but the plane means sledgehanuncring asade
- m. ark of the costs can be passed skmg t
- Pievn M my wddest drums dd I thint ti critirs plcfriy of ammunidon. A spokesman ultima tely decided to start taling the plant ne cesop6ese the dt%nanthag ef the For134. ,
lent of steet ytpet and cement waHs. Trale murler plamL But ll pesas to customers. Industry ofiletafs predlet. But wow e th!s empeest,e - for Generas Atorr.ics says that the ptact spart tasi August. "We just couldn't see The huge saiount of water used se cool leave the ausside watts stssdeng, and ena-the ut!!!tler themse6ves witt atmost cer - a constrertas began on Fort 5t "was safe. Udort-eately. there were guardtag the piare for half a ceniury."
tainty have a shoulder big chefkk.s of the mpggwe ether nuclear reactors wasal supposed w austry rebusid the ineards as turn satural says un eremM todt - thus ereding their pruru margins, were suit prortalming nurkar power the produce electricity at a cost that woud be a @m at Fert St. Ye's 3.amle- gas. "You can seat bring your etedrea es' Why is dismantung a plant se expen- gree core because this ctant uses behuse to *Isse." says Orgg Oe= toed. vtre presadent raistng their dets totats and maklag it sasen to Msu toci ponh it.e nuricar pr ime the utmty a preht under con- ' sive? Engineers ctee the extensive safety costrue temperatures. Dst engineers have sumn come cetungs set by state regwasors. of electric pruduruus. Ne was t have a tealskg ret tred, me need as votare distweered they wif! have to pour a spistos I r ed ing et:1 the fedent Geaa Air Art of 101 emch "An ecopoepic disaverf" concludes CsW merlest reacter. of course. But wei stal be workers to simd radation engesure sad gallons et water into the reactor vessel assamt electrhtsty."
+ry boruts:_ her most of this happens ~ says Damel Scotto, a utthty txmd analyst se .. -
Junaldson, tafbe & Jenrette. "Teartg "
tway the layers of decommtsanoeing prub-etss a hke peeleg an emon. Your eyes g est more and rrmre." 4 - '
E, the sts yeari since Putate Service of j 6-llorads's Fort $t. Vrain operatloa weet a euinan i .gg H
A
% b j .,
1 >
- - s -
- - ,a reeuq
(" .
.- ? - . .
-4 :.
- E~- . ..
- UNITED STATES - .
~
$\, . J . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. Washington! D.C.120555i November 13,1992:
-ERRATA SHEET Report Number: NUREG/CR-5512 PNL-7994 Vol.1 i
Report 'Iltle: Residual Radioactive Contamination From Decommissioning Technical Basis for Translating Contamination'.
Levels to Annual Total Effective Dose Equivalent.
Final Report Prepared by: Pacific Northwest Laboratory s
Date Published: Octo6er 1992 1
~ Instructions: Please make the fc!!owing change to the title page:
R. A. Meek to' R. A. Meck 4
l-i f
Division of Freed'om of Information and Publications Services
- Office' of Administration
, . -. ~. . . - . _- . . -
1 8 a j#""*%
. 3. -e * '
- -4' 9 g~
UNITED STATES . . ,
9
%, * * * * * /,)- NUCLEAR REGULATORY.COMMISSIONJ i Washington, D.C.- 205554 f
-November 13,1992:
a ERRATA SHEET Report Number: NUREG/CR-5512 ;
PNL-7994 Vol.1 -
Report
Title:
Residual Radioactive Contamination From Decommissioning -
Technical Basis for Translating Contamination - _,
Levels to Annual Total Effective Dose Equivalent .
- _ Final Report Prepared by
- Pacific Northwest laboratory -
Date Published: October 1992 .
Instructions: Please make the following change to the title page:
R. A. Meek to R. A. Meck L
4 4
Dhision of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration
(
INTERNATIONAL DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES Activities related to radiological criteria for decommissioning are occurring both in other countries and in international forums such as. the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In general, the current practice is to derive decommissioning criteria on a case-by-case basis, usually using the guidance of the IAEA Safety Series No. 89, " Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from Regulatory Control." - The IAEA guioance 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. This assumes the-practice selected is considered optimal i.e., As low As is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). A practice is assumed to be optimal if the estimated collective dose is less than 1 person-Sievert /y (100 person-rem /y). 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 materit's.
During November 1990, the IAEA convened a group of consultants to develop a draft 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 methodology being developed:
for the publication of NUREG/CR-5512, " Residual Radioactive Contamination From Decommissioning: Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to .
Annual Dose." Separate IAEA consultants and advisory group meetings in November 1991 and June 1992, and produced a draft document, " National Policies and Regulations-for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities'." .This latter document-is still early in its development and will require.further work before it is suitable for distribution as a draft. Another consultants meeting was held in Vienna, Austria in December 1992 to work on the draft.
In a related area, there has been a recent focus upon waste disposal and recycle at the IAEA. The criterion is typically set at 10 Sv (l' mrem) per year based on the IAEA Safety Series No. 89 guidance. 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. An IAEA advisory group, in which the NRC is participating, 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.
Residual contamination limits for decommissioning have been developed in several European countries based on the guidance in IAEA Safety Series No. 89.
The most extensive information in the literature is on decommissioning in-the-Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) where residual contamination limits have 1
E
b been incorporated into radiation protection ordinances. ~However, these I
ordinances are treated more-as guidance to be applied, as-appropriate, on a case-by-case basis rather than as regulations. In the FRG approximatelyL28%
of the electrical power is: generated by 20 operating nuclear power plants; Thirteen prototype nuclear power plants have been shut down and are in various_-
stages of-decommissioning. In addition several research reactors have been-taken out of service -Estimates of total decommissioning wastes from'all:
nuclear installations in FRG before unification range from 90,000 to 120,000 m'. However, by the year 2000 only about 10,000 m' of decommissioning. waste.
is expected to accumulate.'
Decommissioning in the_FRG-is being carried out on a case-by-case basis'using the following residual contamination Surface contamination limits.
may not exceed 0.37 Bq/cm' (10 pC1/cm' guidelines.
) beta-gamma and 0.037_ Bq/cm' (1 pt alpha, and specific activity limits may not exceed 3.7 Bq/g (100 pCi/g).[/cm')
Recycle of contaminated materials from nuclear instaliations is encouraged.
The preferable option is to recycle this material within the nuclear industry.-.
If this cannot be dane for technical or economic reasons, recycle-outside the nuclear industry is allowed if, in accordance with the principals in lAEA Safety Series No. 89, individual risks are sufficiently low as not to warrant regulatory concern.
In France most nuclear facilities are owned by the French government through-various public companies and organizations. Currently 75% of the electric-power is generated by 50 operating nuclear power plants. There are presently _-
no specific regulatory criteria in place for decommissioning of nuclear facilities. However, in practice France has adopted an early CEC recommendation of 100 Bq/g (2700 pCi/g) as a residual contamination limit in cases where only small total quantities of radioactive material hav_e'been ~
involved.' [The French are developing recommended residual contaminated limits for CEC under contrut) Case-by-case determinations cre apparently
- G. Wolany, L. Weill, R. Gortz, " Regulatory aspects of.Decoomissioning in the Federal Republic of Germany", International Seminar-on Decommissioning Policies, Paris, October 2-4, 1991.
- Meis, H.P., Stang, W., " Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plant Gundremmingen Unit A," 1987 International Decommissioning Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA, October 1987.
L
' Hoffman, R., Leidenberger, B., " Optimization of. Measurement Techniques for very Low Level Radioactive Waste Material," 1989 International Conference on the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, October 1989.
- Hempelmann, W., " Treatment of Waste Metals from Decommissioning,"-
Pittsburgh, PA, October 1987.
5 Chapuis, A.M., Guetat, P., Garbay, H.. " Exemption limits for'the Recycling _ of Materials. form the Dismantlir.g of Nuclear Installations," 1987 International Decommissioning Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA, October 1987.
2 1
i
. .. --. _ - . _. . . _ ~.. . < _ . _
made in situations where large total: quantities of. radioactive materials are involved.
In the United Kingdom residual _ radioactivity criteria for decommissioning ;is developed on a case-by-case basis using the general principals set out in IAEAL Safety Series ho. 89.
In Finland there is a federal guide for' disposal or recycle of wastes from nuclear facilities.' The guide adopts the dose guidelines from-IAEA Jafety; Series No. 89 and applies the following activity _ constraints to unrestricted exemption: (a) Total activity concentration of 1-kBq/kg of beta or gamma -
activity or 100 Bq/kg of alpha activity averaged over a maximum of-1000 kp of. >
waste, and (b) total non-fixed surface contaminati_on (averaged over 0;1 m for.. .
accessible surfaces) of 4 kBq/m' of beta _ or gamma activity or 400 Bq/m' of' '
alpha activity. The guide does not cpecifically. address whether the guidelines apply to lands and structures. '
s in general, disposal or recycle in European countries of materials (including lands and structures) containing residual radioactivity is carried out'in accordance with the principals for limiting. radiation dose to members of the-public set out in IAEA Safety Series No. 89. However, specific national-guidelines derived from these principles (and expressed in terms of residual radioactivity in materials to be released for unrestricted release) have so far been developed principally for recycle of materials from nuclear power pl ants . Current practice in most European countries is to derive residual radioactivity criteria for lands and structures on a case-by-case-basis using-the general principals set out in IAEA Safety Series No. 89. .
The Commission of European Communities (CEC) has recommended clearance levels' for mass and/or surface activity concentration for recycle of materials from dismantling of nuclear installations, based on generic assessment of individual and collective doses from recycle and use of the material ' There are presently no CEC guidelines for unrestricted release of lands and -
' structures. Howev_er, the CEC preparing guidelines:which are expected to be in place in 1994. Individual member countries would then be_ expected to adopt these guidelines, y
- YVL-Guide-8.2 " Exemption from Regulatory Control of Nuclear Wastes,"
2nd Revised Edition, January 5, 1992, Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear-Safety, Helsinki, Finland. -
' Radiation- Protection No. 43 " Radiological' Protection Criteria for. the Recycling of Materials-From Dismantling of Nuclear Installations," p~ 17, Commission of the European Communities", Luxembourg, November 198,8.
3 e r ,-,5s , c--w - ,.--n ,-->-- -. , , - - , m... ,.- , - - - , - - - - - - , . ~ . - -,.n ,
4 k
^ '[7690-01j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-10 CFR Part 20 1 Radiological Criteria-for Decommissioning of; NRC-licensed Facilities; Workshops AGENCY: ~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION - Notice of Workshops.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear 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. The Commission plans to conduct a series of workshops to solicit'# commentary from affected interests on the fundamental approaches and issues that must laa addressed in establishing the radiological criteria-for:
decommissioning. The workshops will be' held in various locations throughout the United States beginning in January, 1993 and will' be open to the-public.
2 DATES: The schedule.for_the workshops =is as follows:
January'27 and 28, 1993- -Chicago, IL.
February 23 and 24, 1993 San 1 Francisco, CA.
March 12 and 13, 1993 ~ Boston,.MA..
March 23 and 24, 1993 Dallas, TX.
April 13 and 14, 1993- -Philadelphia, PA.'
April 29 and 30, 1993 . Atlanta, GA.
May 6 and 7, 1993 Washington, D.C. -
(National' Workshop)__
As discussed later in this notice, the workshop discussions will focus on the. issues and approaches identified in-a Rulemaking Issues Paper-prepared by the NRC staff. The Commission will accept written comments on the Rulemaking Issuos-Paper from the public, as well as from workshop participants.
Written comments should be submitted lar May 28, 1993.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on the Rulemaking-Issues.
Paper to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission,_ <
Washington, DC 20555. ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch.
Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.-
The Rulemaking Issues Paper is available from Francis X. Cameron (See "FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT").
3 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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:
r
Background
The 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 ensure the 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. Once licensed activities-have ceased, licensees are required to decommission their facilities so that their licenses may be terminated. This requires that the 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 alltfacilities have been properly decontaminated and that-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.
4
~
The types of nuclear fuel cycle facilities that will require decommissioning include nuclear power plants; non-power (recearch and test) reactors; fuel fabrication plants, uranium hexafluoride production plants, and independent spent fuel storage installations. In addition there are currently;about 24,000 unterials licensees. 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 -
because .here is usually little or no residua?. radioactive contamination. Of the remaining 50%, a small number (e.g.
radioactive source manuf acturers, radiopharmaceutical producers, and radioactive ore processors) conduct operations that could produce substantial radioactive contamination in portions of the facility. These facilities, like the fuel cycle facilities identified above, must be decontaminated before they can be safely released for unrestricted 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
5 do not present complex decommissioning problems or potential risks to public health or the environment from residual contamination. However, as the nuclear industry natures, it is expected that more and more of the larger nuclear facilities that have been operating for a number of years will reach the end of their useful lives and be decommissioned. Therefore, 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 this 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. A rulemaking effort would also proviva 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 decommissionina experience obtained during the past 15 years.
- -mm_ _
i 6
The new crittaia would 9pply 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. The criteria would apply to nuclear facilities that operate through their normal lifetime, as well as to those that-may be shut down prematurely. The proposed criteria would not apply to uranium (other than source material) mines and mill >
tailings, high-level wasts repositories, or low-level whste disposal facilities.
Until the new critoria are in place, the commission intends to proceed with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities on a site-specific basis as the need arises considering existing criteria. ..
case and activity-specific risk decisions will continue to be madeuns necessary during the pendency of this process.
The Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking The Commission helieves 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 E initiating an enhanced participatory rulemaking to establish-L these criteria. The objective of the rulemaking is to enhance the participation of affected interests in the rulemaking by g
_. . . _ , _ . ,._ -__ _ .-.- . _. . _ _ __ ... - ..- ,- ._m._.,
4 '
7 ,
soliciting commentary from these interests on-the rulateking issues before the NRC staff develops the draft proposed rule. ,
The NRC staff will consider this commentary in the development of the draft proposed rule, as well as document how these comments were considered in arriving at a regulatory approach. The jI commission believes that this will be an effective method for illuminating the decision saking process on-complex and -
controversial pubife health and safety issues. This approach will ensure that the important issues have been identified; will assist in identifying potential 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 s
provide representatives of tho affected interests with an opportunity to discuss the rulemaking issues with.one another and to question one enother about their respective-positions and L 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 L issues. In addition to the commentary from the workshop L :
[ :-
, f
)
1 8 I participants, the workshops will be open-to the public and the f public will be provided with the opportunity to-comment on the j ruleraking issues and the workshop discussions at discrete intervals during the workshops.
The normal process for conducting Commission ritlemakings is NRC 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 NRC staff,-and-preparation of a draft final rule for Commission approval. In >
tho enhanced participatory rulemaking, not only will consents be solicited before the NRC staff prepares a draft proposed rule,.
but the mechanism for soliciting these early comments will also provide on 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 NRCE staff. After Commission review and approval of the draft proposed rule that is developed using the workshop commentary, the general process of issuing the proposed rule for public comment, NRC staff evaluation of comments, and preparatien of a draft final rule for Commission approval, will occur.
1
i I
9 Participants.
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 1 i
facilitation, the NRC staff believes that the optimum size of the -l l
workshop group is fifteen to twenty participants. Due-to l l
J differing levels of interest in each region, the actual number of participants in any one workshop, as well as the number of part cipants.that represent a particular interest in any one '
workshop, may vary. Invitations to attend the workshops will be extended by the NRC staff using several selection ciiteria.- .
First, to ensure that the Commission has the benefit of the -
spectrum of viewpoints on the issues, the NRC staff is attempting' to achieve the participation of tne full range of interests that may be affected by the rulemaking. The NRC staff.has identified ,
several general interests that will be-used to select' specific workshop participants -- state governments, local governments, tribal goverr.ments, Federal agencies,' citizens groups, nuclear
! utilities, fuel cycle facilities, and non-fuel cycle facilities, i
In addition to these interests, the staff alr" plans to invite representatives from the contracting industry that performs L decommissioning work and representatives-from professional societies, such as the Health Physics Society and the American ,
Nuclear Society. The NRC anticipates that most of the participants will be representatives of. organizations. However, 1:
l-h - . . - - . . . _ . - .
e l
10 it is also possible that there may be a few participants who, because of their expertise and influence, will participate' without any organizational affiliation, i
The s'acond selection criterion is the ability of the participant to knowledgeably discuss the full rangs of rulemaking issues.
The HRC 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 NRC 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 istue, and the extent of a potential 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 workshop. As much as practicable, those organizations that primarily operate within-the region, as opposes to regional units of national ,
organizations, will have priority in terms of participating in-the corresponding regional workshcps. Organizations with a national standing will be part of the " national" workshop to be held in Washington, D.C.
L i
l-
. -. - ._ . - - . _ , , . ~ . . . - . - .-. , ,
r i
11 Wherever possible, the NRC staff plans to arrange the participation of individual organizations in the workshops through national organizations such as the organization of Agreement States, and the conference of Radiation ControlLProgram i 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 tra vyuas of organizations that may eventually participate in ths orkshops, the commission has provided the following summary:
o State governmants. The Organization of Agreement States and ,
the CRCPD are willing to coordinate the. participation of individual states in the regional workshops. The NRC staff has also notified the National Governor's Association, the Western Governors Association, the National conference of State Legislatures, and the Nstional 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 l Clean Environment, the National Congress of American l
l l
I
~ . . . _ - , _ u...,__,- . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . . , , , . 2.,., _2 . . . _ __ _ . _ u u _____ _ _ _ . _
F 12 Indians, and the Council of Energy Resource Tribes -- in regard to the participation of tribal Governments in the regional workshops.
The NRC staff has contacted several-o Citizens groups.
citizen groups at the national level in regard to their general interest in participating in the national workshop.
The groups contacted include 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 staff 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, the NRC staff t
has contacted a number of citizens groups about their I
potential interest in the enhanced participatory rulemaking, o Nuclear utilities. The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) will coordinate the participation of utilities in the workshops.
L
13 o Fuel cycle facilities. The United States Council on Energy Awarenecs (USCEA) and the Fuel Cycle Facilities Forum will coordinate the participation of fuel cycle companies in the workshops.
o Non-fuel cycle facilities. The NRC staff has contacted a number of organizations in this category about potential participation in the workshops, including ~ regional radioisotope users groups. The USCEA Committee cnt -
Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals assisted 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, and the university research community.-
o Decommissioning contractors.- In order to ensure that information on decommissioning 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, o Federal agencies. The NRC staff has contacted several ,
Federal agencies about participation in the workshops. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), because-of its-
-.-_ .-.._ .a _- -
14 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 decommissioning.
The Commission believes that this consultative approach with-EPA will be an efficient way to 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 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 directly applicable to DOE facilities, _ DOE-possesses:
substantial expertise in.the decommissioning area.that will- I be a useful source of information in'the national workshop.
It should be noted that under the Formerly Utilized Site-e-- c~-- ( --w- , s
_ - . . _ _ _ . . _ _ .- __.__...m_. . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ .__ _ . _ . _.. _ _.. _ _ . . _ _ _ _
i 15 i Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), and in some other circumstances, DOE may take title to a licensee's or former licensee's site for cleanup and long term care, including :
monitoring. The NRC 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.
o Professional societies. The NRC staff has contacted the Health Physics Society, the American Nuclear Society, and .
other professional sociaties in regard to their potential interest in participating in the national workshop.
Workshop 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 i
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 NRC staff does not intend to give any greater weight to comments made during that workshop than to any ot4er workshop. The regional framework will allow-the commission to hear from as many knowledgaable organizations at the local level as possible. These local organizations will
T 16 bring a unique perspective to the discussion of the rulemaking issues, and the regional workshops will also give the NRC an :
opportunity to interact with organizations with which it has.not previously had the opportunity to do so.
The existing NRC regional framework was used to select the workshop locations, with slight adjustments made to acconmodate areas with a heightened interest in decommissioning activities, as well as to maximize participation in the workshops. ,
Notification of the specific meeting locations in each of the.
t
~
cities that have been selected as a workshop site will be announced through publication in the Federal Register and letters.
to individual participants. ;
To assure that each workshop addresses the issues in a consistent manner, the workchops will have a common pre-defined scope and agenda focused on the Rulemaking Issues' Paper discussed below, t However, the workshop format will be'sufficiently flexible to allow for the introduction of any additional issues'that the participants may want to raine. 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 workshor will be devoted to a discussion of.the issues by the participants. The workshop commentary will be transcribed and-made available to participants and to the public.
d - J 1p eyW-=rw rw d e- y v,-i q+-y - ---w--7 w-
- ys set M- e_- -
W*- 1r -up e--W,-- + =*y-gyr- y wW"g w-m-T -w'F'Tw y**
l
.e 17 Personnel from The Keystone Center, a nonprofit organization located in Keystone, colorado, will serve as neutral facilitators for each workshop. The facilitators will chair the workshop .
sessions and ensure that participants are given an opportunity to express their viewpoints, assist participants in articuleting i
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. .
t Rulemaking Issues Paper.
The NRC 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 Rulem. king Issues Paper, the NRC staff has attempted to anticipate the variety of views;that exi'st
- on these approaches and issues. The paper will provide assistance to the participants as they prepare for the workshops,;
suggest the workshop agenda, and establish the level 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. Prior to the workshops,no staff 4
- r 'e--
-> r ., 2 -,
n - 4 J-G y, ,.- -
t 18 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 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) Risk Limits, which is the establishment of limiting values above which the risks to the
~
public are deemed unacceptable, but allows for criteria to be set 4 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 related to the discussions of the primary issues, but which the NRC staff believe warranc separate presentations and
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ ~ . _ - , . - _ _. . , . .
19 discussions. These secondary issues include tne 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. Additional copies will be available to members of the public in attendance at the workshop. Copies will ,
also be available from the NRC staff contact identified ubove. .
In 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, as noted under the heading " DATES". -
Dated at Rockville, MD this 2nd day of December, 1992.
7 For e Nuc ar gula ry Commission.
\
p Samuel J. Chi lk, Secretary of the Commission i
- . - _ . - . = _ . _ , -
. t t
PROPOSED RULEMAKING TO ESTABLISH RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR DECOMMIShIONING ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AT WORKSIiOPS 8
1-f l- 1 4
- w ..i--- .
4 v ,,, , , , , n. ..
Mi%.Pl The Comission proposes to revise 10 CFR part 20 to include radiological criteria for termination of licenses and release of land and structures for unrestricted use it is the Comission's intent that the criteria developed in this rulemaking would spply to almost all licensed facilities and sites.8 However, it would not apply to sites already covered by a Commission approved decommissioning plan. An estimate of the numbers and types of facilities expected to be covered by this rulemaking is provided in the BACKGROUND section of this paper. A discussion of how the Commission proposes _to implement the criteria can be found in the section entitled PROPOSED
.GOMMISSION ACTIONS. There may be a small number of sites where cleanup to criteria for unrestricted release developed in this rulemaking may not be-practical. The approach to hand 11ng such cases is an issue for discussion.-
The purpose of this issues paper is to describe the background and issues that would be associated with a rulemaking to establish 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. r The description of issues is divided into two parts. First are two primary issues dealing with: 1) the objectives for developing radiological criteria;- '
and 2) the 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 alternatives L including
- 1) Risk Limits, where a limiting value is selected and criteria are
' The criteria would not apply to the disposition of uranium mill
, tailings, low-level waste disposal facilities, or-high level .<aste i repositories since these have already been addressed in separa:e reguis. tory actions. They would apply, however, to uranium mills and ancillary facilities -
~
that support radioactive waste disposal (e.g., surface. facilities for the high level waste repository).
2 p-
l i
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 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.
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, raeans 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.' ,
Dr.ce 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, surface water, buildings, and equipment d
A glossary of other terms generally used by the NRC can be found in Appendix A.
3
'*%e -mr--,a w w R rv-wne-- -e.4-- -e n pq g- t- < wpm + 'e4
, my -- _,m-'e y ---y 3- m
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 decomissioning.
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 through an agreement entered into under 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 op and disposed of. Of the remaining 50%, a small number (e.g.
radioactive source manufacturers, radiopharmaceutical producers, and radioactive ore processors) conduct operations which could produce substantial radioactive contamination in portions of the facility. The population of nuclear fuel cycle ,acilities which will require decommissioning includes 112 nuclear power plants (at 75 sites); 74 non-power (research and test) reactors; 14 fuel fabrication plants, 2 uranium hexafluoride production plants, 49 uranium mill facilities, and 9 independent spent fuel storage installations.
These facilities will have to be decontaminated to acceptable levels 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' illustrationof how a facility or equipment might become contaminated through the use of radioactive material in forms which are not entapsulated 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 4
l
t 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 miterials, equipment, 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 procedures. 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.
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. 7 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.
5
- -a-- - _- . -
- w. . - -- - . . - - . - - - ~ .
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 decomissioning process for an extended time. The Commission has established a Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) for effecting timely decomissioning of these problem facilities. Sites being handled under j
the SDMP vary in degree of radiologic hazard, cleanup complexity, and cost. l Some sites comprise tens of acres that require assessment for radiological l contamination, whereas other sites have contamination known to be limited-to 1 individual buildings or discrete piles of tailings or contaminated soil. 1 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 sites, little or no decontamination work has been done, whereas at other sites, decommissioning plans have been submitted or license termination is in the offing.
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 (GAO),
which has been critical of the Commission's inability to effect timely decommissioning of these sites, has recommended that NRC enhance its decomissioning efforts by reconsidering its radiological criteria for decommissioning *.
Until new criteria are in place, the Commission intends to proceed with decommissioning nuclear facilities on a site-specific basis as the need arises considering existing criteria coupled with the concept that residual radioactivity be as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Case and activity-specific decisions concerning decommissioning of sites will continue.
to be made as necessary during the pendency of this process. Since the SDMP' sites could pose unnecessary environmental and public risk or financial burden GA0 Report to Congress, "NRC's decomissioning Procedures and Criteria Need to Be Strengthened", GA0/RCED-89-Il9, May 1989 6
-. - - . . - ~
t if they are not cleaned up and decommissioned in a timely manner, the Comission's effort to effect timely decomissioning of these sites is proceeding in parallel with this proposed rulemaking action. The NRC published an Action Plan to ensure timely remediation of sites listed in the SDMP in the Federal Reaister.' It should be noted that as a matter of current policy the NRC does not plan to require additional cleanup of sites in response to criteria established N this rulemaking, provided that the licensee or responsible party cleaned up the site, or was in the process of cleaning up the site in full accordance with 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 Internationc1 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 decommissioning.
NEED FOR RULEMAKING l
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 L 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 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 decommissioning activities anticipated in the future. In addition, a L rulemaking effort would also provide an opportunity to reassess the basis for the residual contamination levels contained in existing guidance in light of
'57 FR 13389, April 16, 1992.
1 7
, .- - i...,,,... . . - . - . _ - - - , _ . , . - _ - - . - , . - . . . _ . _ . . - , _ _ _ _ _ _ =- .
1
(
'I
)
changes in basic radiation protection standards' and decommissioning experience obtained during the past 15 years.
Current regulations do not explicitly address radiological criteria for i decomissioning.' Pending NRC rulemaking on generic radiological criteria for decomissioning, the NRC continues to use its current criteria and practices.' The NRC could continue to decommission on a site-specific basis using existing guidance. However, the Comission believes that codifying radiological criteria for decomissioning 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 regulatory critaria 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
' As codified in the May 21, 1991 revisionof10CFRPart20(56FR 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.
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 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 +o 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 Prima v 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.
8 l
e-- :w-yynm- wmT yw , m-c-y -=uv-< -
rv-
'l 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. There may be a small number of sites where cleanup to criteria for unrestricted release developed in this rulemaking may not be practical. The approach to handling such cases is an issue for discussion.
On July 3,1990, the Commission published a Below Regulatory-Concern (GRC)
Policy Statement in the Federal Reaister. The BRC Policy was intended to guide a broad range of Comission actions, including exemptions from Commission regulations, as well as the development of generic health and safety standards such as those involved in this rulemaking. Subsequent to the publication of the BRC Policy, the Commission placed an indefinite -
moratorium on the implementation of the BRC Policy because of the broad public concern expressed over the new Policy.' After the Commission placed the indefinite moratorium on the implementation of the BRC Policy, it decided to initiate this rulemaking to address the critical need for generic site cleanup and decommissioning standards for NRC-licensed facilities. The Commission determined that it should proceed with a fresh approach to the development of these standards that is independent of the now defunct BRC Policy.
that support radioactive waste disposal (e.g., surface facilities- for the high level waste repository).
Section 2901 of the recently enacted National Energy Policy Act of 1992 -(H.R. 776) revoked the Commission's July,1990, BRC Policy Statement.
Section 2901 also revoked the Commission's policy statement of August 29, 1986 that established criteria to guide Commission-exemption decisions on specific low-level radioactive waste streams. This latter policy was developed in order to comply with Section 10 of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy-l Amendments Act of 1985. The Commission will be issuing a formal withdrawal of-these two policy statements in the Federal Reaister.in January, 1993.
9
. Concurrent with the NRC rulemaking on site cleanup standards, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proceeding to develop standards and guidance for Federal agencies in the area of radiation protection, including standards for the cleanup of contaminated sites. The NRC and EPA plan to coordinate their efforts in this area in order to ensure that effective and consistent site cleanup standards are established, while minimizing duplication of effort. Accordingly, the EPA will not only be, an important participant in the NRC rulemaking workshops but the NRC also plans to consult extensively with EPA throughout the rulemaking process. It is anticipated that the information gathered during the workshops on the NRC standards will also be relevant and useful to the EPA efforts in the area of site cleanup standards. The NRC will also participate in EPA efforts in this area, such as the activities of the EPA Interagency Working Group on Radiation Protection. The objective of the NRC and EPA cooperative efforts is to attempt to reach an agreement that the NRC standards established in the enhanced participatory rulemaking are sufficient to provide adequate protection to the public health and safety for NRC-licensed sites. The EPA efforts could then focus on the site clean-up standards for non-NRC licensed sites, such as DOE and D00 facilities. This is consistent with the principles and procedures set forth in a recent Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and EPA to guide each agency's actions in areas of mutual regulatory concern."
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. As directed and approved by the Commission, the NRC staff plans to enhance l
" Federal Reaister, Vol. 57, 54127, November 16, 1992,
- Memorandum of Understanding Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental l
Protection Agency" 10
participation in this process through a series of workshops for interested partias. The workshops are planned to elicit informed 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 identified; b) to exchange information on these issues; and c) to identify underlying concerns and areas of disagreement, and, where possible, approaches for resolution. It is the Commission's hope that the interactions that will 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). It is the Commission's intent that the criteria developed in this rulemaking would apply to almost all licensed facilities and sites."
However, it would not ogly to sites already covered by a Commission approved decommissioning plin. An estimate of the numbers and types of facilities . ;
expected to be covered by this rulemaking can be found in the BACKGROUND section of this paper.
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
" The criteria would not apply to the disposition of uranium mill-tailings, low-level waste disposal facilities, or high level waste repositories since these have already been addressed in separate. regulatory actions. They would apply, however, to uranium mills and ancillary facilities that support radioactive waste disposal (e.g., surface facilities for the high level waste repository).
l 11
' . published to provide licensees with guidance on how licensees _could demonstrate compliance with the regulation. ]
l The Comission's plan for implementing the rule is described below. The I Commission would-issue supporting documents concurrent with the rule which provide guidance on implementetton of the residual contamination criteria in j the rule. These documents would include a " Guidance Mnual for. Conducting i Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination" (NUREG/CR-5849) and a l Technical 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 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 would 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 supporting documents is already underway, and drafts are;available ,
for information. However, these documents are not intended to constrain the 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 decormissioning. These activities include:
12
~ _ _ . .
. (1) rulemaking to define the timeliness of decommissioning, and (2) rulemaking to require licensees to list in one location all land, buildings, and equip'ent involved in licensed operations. These activities will not be specifically considered as part of the discussions on radiological criteria for decomissioning.
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Before the Comission formally proposes to proceed with rulemaking as:
described above, it is prepared to consider a wide range of alternative approa:hes, including maintaining the status qus. 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 decomissioning.
l l
The Comission 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. Th.se 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 the rationale for their preferences and positions in the workshop setting.
l The workshop discussions will be used by the NRC staff in developing a proposed rule or, if considered appropriate, pursuing an alternative strategy-for decomissioning.
The discussion of issues is divided into two parts. First are two primary issues dealing with the objectives for developing radirlogical criteria, and the application of practicality considerations. 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 13
?
i issue with potentielly useful information for the workshop discussions. A list of sub-issues is aise provided to focus the discussions. It is important-to recognize that the Comission does not regulate natural background or fallout from weapons or other sources beyond its authority. Therefore, the following decomissioning issues are to be cons dered as they apply to i
radioactivity that is both attributable to licensed operations and is above background levels.
The Comission does not intend to include the issue of Agreement State compatibility with liRC requirements as a topic for-discussion in the workshops. The Comission has a concurrent process to establish a general I policy on compatibility and does not believe it would be efficient to have two separate forums focussing on the same subject. The Commission believes that the ongoing process to establish the general policy on compatibility would be the more appropriate forum to discuss all compatibility issues, in addition, parties will be afforded the opportunicy to come nt on compatibilit.y issues at t the time of the publication of a proposed decomissioning rulemaking. This 4 approach will allow the workshops to focus upon the central technical issues and approaches to the radtolegical criteria for decomm4.ssioning.
DRIMARY ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Issue I: What objective (s) should serve as the b: sis t'or establishing radiological criteria for decomissioning?
Discussion:
There are four fundamental kinds of objectives that could serve as the starting point for developing radiological criteria for decomissioning (i.e.,
release for unrestricted use). They are described briefly below.
- 1. Elfl1MITS--Establishment of limits above which the risks to the public are deemed unaccentable. The objective in this. case would be to fino a limit above which risks would be unacceptable, and then establish 14 1
P additional criteria to'further reduce exposures to-levels below the unacceptable to tha extent practical. With this_ objective, afsite could-be released for unrestricted use if there were reasonable assurance er demonstration that members of the 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 limit. established by the NRC as representing the boundary of unacceptable exposure to an individual or group of individuals. Below this 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 considerationr.
(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 goal, or as close to those goals as practical. Using this objective, a site would be released for unrestricted use if the radioactivity 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 r 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 emohasizina 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 15
' m
['~ 4 1
~
-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 factor,.but Is not taken into consideration on the basis of cost versus benef; ~ balancing.
- 4. RETURN TO BACKGROUND LEVELS. This objective would be to remove.all radioactivity attributable to licensed activities. A site would'be released-for unrestricted use only if all radioactivity attributable to licensed activity were removed. . This objective could_ be difficult to' implement either because s. the costs associated.in-. educing residual radioactivity to bee.kground levels or because of the difficulty _in demonstrating that a return to background levels hao been achieved.
Demonstrating a return to bhckgroundJ1evels could be especially; difficult at sites where the background levels were not recorded prior to beginning licensed operations, or at facilities licensed to use nuclides'such as uranium or thorium which already exist in varying degrees in the natural background.
The following information is provided to aid discussion and is focused first-on the Risk Limits and Risk Goals objectives and secondly un the Best Effort and the Return to Background objectives:
The fundamental principle underlying all NRC regul'ations and activities has been that radiation doses to members of the public from licensed activities must be reduced to levels established as limits (Risk Limits objective).
The limits pose the boundary of unacceptable public risk regardless of the cost required to at.hieve such reduction, and risks shou _id be further reduced to levels which are 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
Although NRC regulations are designed to limit risk, not all limits in the regulations were established on the basis of risk.
16 o.
t N
decontaminating'an area-is to remove contamination throuin sweeping', washing,
- ch'emical stripping,- scabbling thin layers of concrete, etc. The area .is then surveyad and the results compared to the app'ropriate established criteria. If
~
the area daes not meet the criteria,-then further steps are taken to: reduce-
~
the level of radioactivity remaining. Once the leveltf 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 Interne ional 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 limit (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 ALARA would be applied after the' constraint was met. nis approach is similar to the approach already utilized by the NRC in q establishing criteria for effluents from nuclear power plants in 10 CfR Part 50 Appendix I and by the Environmental Protection Agency in the generally _ l applicable environmental standards such as 40-CFR Part 190 and'in 40 CFR Part 61, tne regulations implementing the Clecn Air Act.
The Risk Goals objective was recently applied by the Environmental Protection l l
Agency in the selection of values for radionuclides:in drinking water. In its pror.osal, the EPA established maximum contaminant level gnis. -(MCLGs) for radionuclide levels, then established maxiraum contaminant levels (HCLs) which ware greater than the goals in recognizing factors such as availability of'
" International Commission on tidiation Protection, ICRP Publication 60, November 1990.
17
_ _ .. ._ _m
Ltechnology, costs to remove radionuclides, and--numbers of individuals involved. 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. Furthermore, confusion ~ has resulted from failure to distinguish between levels.and goals.
In addition, 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 mat'erials.
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 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 EFA published a proposed rulemaking on the identification of hazardous wasts which included, as an option, the use of multiples of these health basea limits in determining the appropriate approach to management of the waste as hazardous or other solid waste. Although The proposed approach hr.s been withdrawn, EPA plans to continue assessing the me-its of approaches used by others ( 57 FR 49280, Octobcr 30,1992).
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 one and scveral 18
tens of millirem per year Total Effective Dose' Equivalent -(TEDE/y) (exclusive of doses from radon and its daughter products)."
The EPA Clean Air. Act and regulations provide practical examples- of the application of. the Best Effort regulatory principle. Among.other things, the-Clean Air Act requires the EPA Administrator to set new 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 achievt.ble control technology (MACT), generally avail'able control ter.hnolegies (GACT), and bust demonstrated technology (BDT), and each of these concepts include considerations of cost and other factors listed in the Clean- Air Act." These terms are defined in Appendix 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 n&tural concentrations of chemicals already exist, such as contaminantt, in a groundwatcr aquifer, the objective is sometimes expressed'in terms of non-
" For some radioisotopes (e.g., '"U), acceptable residual levels may be based on non-radiological effects (e.g., the chemical toxicity of uranium) if the non-radiological effects are potentially more hazardous than the radiological effects.
"Public Law 101-549 (104 STAT. 2399) November 15, 1990, (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,. Sections 111 and 112).
"For examples, sen 56 FR 64382, December 9,1991, " National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories:
Perchloroethylene Emissions From Dry Cleaning Facilities," (Proposed Rule),
and 55 FR 26953, June 29, 1990, " Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Frem the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Processes" (Proposed Rule).
19
-degradation of the existing situation, meaning that no additional materials should be present beyond those already existing.
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, or reflect elements of, the way the Commission deals with uranium mill tailings sites under the provisions of the Uranium Hill Tailinge Radiation-Control Act of 1978, As Amended (UMTRCA). Under the provisions of-UMTRCA, mill tailings sites are partially decontaminated, st.bilized, and subject to requirements for restricted use and long-term care and are r.ot released for unrestricted use. EPA's CERCLA /Superfund Program also allows cost to be a consideration i.n site cleanup; however, cost is typically not a primary consideration in setting environmental levels under RCRA or the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Implementation under these programs is primarily focussed on "Best Demonstrated Available Technology" (BDAT).
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 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 radioactivity for each radionuclide of concern as part of the regulation.
Similarly, a Risk Goal could be codified in terms of a dose or a risk, or alternatively, as specified levels of radioactivity. .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.
20
The terms of 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, i f-'-
objectives were codified in terms of specific raasurable 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 obj6ctive were codified, individual licensees could conduct a site specific analysis to demonstrate to the Comission that their site would meet the objective with different residual radioactivity levels than those determined by the Comission based on a ganeric, 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 numarical level would the regulatory objective for decommissioning provide an acceptable basis for protection of the public health and safety and the environment?
- a. if the Commission 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 decommissioning?_ 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? -
- c. If the Commission chnoses a Best Effort objective as its basis for establishing criteria, what level of technological availability should 21
be used?: How often 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 ba placed on the level of residual radioactivity? -If new ^
technologies become available that are significantly mare efficient in decontaminating a site, should these new techno1cgies 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 criter_ ion?
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 and on what basis?-
- 3. What role should EPA initiatives play in setting objectives? For example, the EPA used about a 10 lifetime risk of fatal cancer for members-of the most highly exposed population group and a general lifetime 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 objectives -
that should be considered?
" 40 CFR Part 61, " National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
. Pollutants; Radionuclides." Final Rule and Notice of Consideration, 54 FR 51654, December 15 '989 22
A n
. 4. What consideration should be given to standards or objectivesiproposed-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 are appropriate for unrestricted use?
- 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 nethod of compliance elsewhere, such as in a Regulatory Guide, or shoulci the regulation be more prescriptive?
Issue II. How should practicality considerations be applied,particularly if-the Commission were to adopt either the' Risk Limit objective or the Risk Goal-objective in its radiological criteria for decommissioning rule?
Discussiont ALARA is an acronym for n low n J.1 reasonabli achievable and means. 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 sociceconomic 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 traditionally used in radiation protection ( Risk Limit objective based) are also the factors that would be used in determining how close pract: Tl criteria can be made to a Risk Goal objective. Thus, in the present context,.
the term ALARA can be usea to represent the oractical process-(that is, cost versus benefit evaluation process) of reaching either the lowest acceptable 23 4
risk below an Risk Limit or the lowest risk above a Risk Goal as discussed in Issue 1.
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 recommendaticas approved by the President on Radiation Protection Guidance to Federcl 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." The NRC rulemaking is being conducted under the Atomic Energy Act, which allows consideration of ALARA, pruvided the public Sealth and safety are protected.
There are a variety uf ways the principle of AL' ARA 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.-
A credible ALARA analysis must consider all of the costs and benefits associated with decontaminating a site to different residual radioactivity levels and must be carefully documented to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives and technologies have been considered. It should take inte account: (1) radiation doses (public and occupational) and env_ironmental impacts both from the process of decommissionir.g the site and from the
~
residual radioactivity which will remain at the site after it has been decommissioned, and (2) all of the cost:; and other risks (e.g. occupational, "52 FR 2822, January 27, 1987.
"55 FR 7750, February 25, 1991.
24
m ._ ._
transportation) associated with the decontamination and decommissioning-the.
. site. It-should also include an analysis which clearly demonstrates how.
overall costs and benefits change with changing residual- radioactivity levels.
The_ analysis must be properly documented. This should include documentation of-the methodology and the ' sources of data used in the analysis, and include an -
assessment of the uncertainties associated witt._ the results of the analysis.
ALARA analysrs can be carried out on either a generic or site specific basis.3 Generic analyses by their very nature will produce results with. higher uncertainty than those that can be obtained from a site specific analysis.
Therefore, a more conservative approach would have to be adopted when conducting a generic analysis to assure that the results of the analysis are appropriate to all of the sites and activities to which the analysis'is expected to apply.
Sub-is sugn
- 1. Should the Commission require that ALARA be determined cn a site-
- pecific basis for each site to be decommissioned? If not, how should ALARA' be applied? Should the Commission establish generic ALArA criteria (i.e.,
i
~
Meeting the generic criteria would be considered ALARA for any site without need fo.' 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 -
l generically, on what basis should the ALARA analysis rest? What-level of L review by the NRC staff should be required to evaluate this-br'is?- For example, if a cost versus benefit analysis were to be used,- what monetary l-value per averted collective dose (i.e. dollars / person-rem) should the L Commission use as a basis for making the determination? How should the level f of difficulty in measuring certain radionuclides in some c'*cumstances be f
25 l
handled? How should the staff address societal and socioeconomic aspects of ,
the ALAPA analysis?-
SECONDARY ISSVES FOR DISCUSSION Secondary Issue A.: What additional considerations should be taken into account when establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning?
Discussion: ,
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 ir.df viduals, and could include considcration' of' a so' called " critical.
group" which would be a small number of individuals thatare 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 sonie single individual to be greater than the average of the group, and therefore experience a dose or risk in excess of the criteria.
Rel&ted to the question of the characteristics of.the individual to be protected is the question of whether. protecting individuals assures that the L population, as a whole, that might be exposed 'is adequately pi atected.
L Various positions have been advanced on.this subject, with some indicating-
- l. 'that protection of each individual automatically assures protection of the ,
population as a whole, and others indica'.ing that. additional criteria m' .. be needed to protect the population. The hypothesis usually used for. the neaulation 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
- t. delivered, will have an equal impact. This reasoning has been used toisupport
!. 26 i
I
the position; in some cases,- that an additional criterion should be applied to the collective dose from a particular facility orisource. On the other hand,.
each decommissioned facility can only expose a limited number of people.
In developing criteria for decommissioning, the codified definition of decommissioning, i.e. to reduce radioactive materials levels to a point where the site is suitable for unrestricted use, becomes-important. Once a site has been released, an individual or group coul;' 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, consideration may also noi 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 appl'ed. T'.iere have been a number of different values suggested and used .a various standards of the NRC-and EPA, ranging from 100 years to over Ic,000 yet s. For radionte'. ides with relatively sho-t half-lives, decay negates the need for evaluations in tht 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 consideratiens 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), suct. 4s cancer fatalities or cancer incidence, genetic effects, etc., should be used in establishing the radiological criteria? -
27
,.r-
.' l -
2 Should the Comission include consideration of an exposed population in-addition to providing criteria for' individuals? If so. how should this influence the' criteria?
-3. Should the Comission 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 rationala 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 sbculd calculations be carried out when making estimates and determining the applicability of criteria? Should the Comission place a maximum value on the time frame to be considered, or should the criteria be applicaole irrespective of time as which a maximum exposure could occur? For l aw 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 applicabiiity of the criteria?
Secondary Issue B.: If the objective the Commission adopts is either the Risk 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 limit specific exposure pathways, such as radionuclides'in groundwater?
l l- Discussion:
This issue arises because, over long periods of time residual radioactivity _
l l
from decomissioned sites could contaminate groundwater that would later be i used for drinking or irrigation. Furthermore, groundwater could be l contaminated from more than one decomissioned site if another site were 28 L
nearby. The Environmental Protection ' Agency has established -limits' for 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 groundwater contamination at decommissioned facilities.
In 10 CFR Part 20, the Commission has ado-ted the International Commission on Radiatien Protection (ICRP) recommendations to account-ft.i doses from all pathways in one ter:a. The Commission combines the doses from external exposures, ingestion and int'alation 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.*'
Conceptually, the NRC could establish an overall limit or goal fo 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 coal 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 criteris 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 tc 4 mrem /y, while for alpha emitters Maximum Contaminant Levels are set in terms of pCi/l and exclude radon and uranium. The EPA has published a proposed revision of these regulations, expressed in terms of a 4 rem /y effective dose equivalent (ses 56 FR 33050).
The proposed revision also includes specific limits on radon and uranium.
'8 For example, the technical basis document translating radioactivity in the environment to dose (PROPOSED COMMISSION ACTIONS section above, 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 o
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 basis for this approach could 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 Suilding structures remaining onsite at the time of unrestricted release could be demolished and -
becc:ne 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. Potentici-impracticality could be addressed by provid:ng 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 or other criteria specified in the rule.
Sub-issues:
- 1. What consideration should be given to the potential for cumulative drinking water contamination from two or more decommissioned sites in the same general area?
- 2. IT specific exposure pathway criteria were chosen, which pathways should-have speific criteria and on what basis should these criteria be established?
- 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 tc conduct a site specific analysis to determine whether allowing this radioactive material to remain d the site might result in unacceptable contamination of drinking water supplies. _
30
- 3. If +he Commission chooses specific criteria for groundwater or water use, should it establish Generic Site Inventory. Levels for screening residual radioactivity at decommissioned sites? Should the basis for such levels be to:
provide reasonable assurance that EPA drinking water standards will not be exceeded? 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 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, radir.m or thorium contamination may have resulted from licensed activities, how should exposures froa radon (mRn and MRn) and its decay products be considered when the facility is decommissioned?
Diseussion:
Small quantities of uranium, radium and thorium are present in al1 soil types -
throughout the United States. These naturally occurring materials arc 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 ecses 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 concentrations ef uranium, radium or thorium have been shown to be not well 31
E
~
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." There are some who believe it may be virtually impossible to demonstrate that doses ,com:
- " 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.
" Soil radium concentrations in the U.S. average about 1.5 pCi/g. The average indoor radon concentration is_about 1.5 pci/l 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.
" 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 te make accurate prediction of doses-very difficult.
" 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 till exist at any given time.
Numerous studies have shown that seemingly identical structures in siinilar environments can nevertheless have considerably different radon concentrations.
32
radon which result from licensed operations have been reduced to levels much below the EPA suggested action level of 4 pCi/l 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 reasonabic 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 consi4 red acceptable?
For example, would it be acceptable to require the licensec i.a 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 l
products as far below the "PA standard as reasonably achievable? How would compliance with such a r , .rement be judged (see Issue II)?
" The level at which EPA suggests actir be taken to reduce radon l concentrations in homes. See "A Citizen's Guide to Radon, 2nd Edition "The Guide to Protecting Yourself and Your Family from Radon", 402-K92-0001, Office of Air and Radiation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ju;e,1992.
33 l
l'
Secondary Irsue D.: How should the Commission rega'rd materials previously buried on-site under disposal provisions in 10 CFR Part 20 in the context of
^
decomnissioning?
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 revoked. However, onsite disposal can still be undertaken by individual licensees under 10 CFR f 902, provided the disposal _is specifically approved by the NRC or an Agreem E 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 accordancs 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 '.arge 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.
The requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 do not explicitly limit the quantity or concentration 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.
34
- Maximum .cotential 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 raaicactive materials disposed of on-site.in accordance with provisions of NRC or Agreement State regulations as part of the total inventory of residual radioactivity that must be considered when preparing a site for decommissioning?
- 2. Should a site specific analysis of the risks, costs, and benefits be-performed before a cecision is made to take any ~ remedial action (e.g.
exhumation and removal of buried radioisotopes, or delaying release of a site to allow decay of short lived buried radioisotopes) involving radioactive material previously disposed of at a site?
i l-f L 35 L
1 4 w-- e <w-- _ m -
APPENDIX A A GLOSSARY OF GENERAL TERMS USED BY ~ THE NRC
Activity (Radioactivity) is the rate of. disintegration (transformation) or decay of radioactive material. The units of activity are the curie (C1)-
and the becquerel (Bq).
AJABA (acronym for "as low as is reasonably achievable") means making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation.as far-below the dose limits in this part as is practical consistent with the purpose for which
the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into acccunt the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to_ state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest.
Backaround radiation means radiation from cosmic sources; naturally occurring radioactive materials, including radon (except as a decay product of .
source or special nuclear material) and global fallout as it exists in the environment from the testing of nuclear explosive devices. " Background radiation" does not include radiation from source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials regulated by the Commission.
Bvoroduct material means --
(1) Any radioactive material (except special nuclear material) yielded in, or made radioactive by, exposure to the radiation incident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear material; and (2) The tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from ore processed primarily for its source material content, including discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction processes. Underground ore bodies depleted by these solution
- 10 CFR Part 20.1003 (56 FR 24018, May 21, 1991]
36
extraction operations do not constitute " byproduct material" within this-definition.
Collective dose is-the- sum of the individual doses received in a given period of time by a specified population from exposure to a specified source -
of radiation.
Commission means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its duly.-
authorized representatives.
Committed dose eouivalent (H,,,,) means the dose equivalent to. organs or tissues of reference (T) that will be received from an intake of radioactive-material by wa individual during the 50-year period following the intake.-
Committed effective dose eouivalent (H,,,,) is the sun of the products of the weighting factors applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are irradiated and the committed dose equivalent to these organs or tissues (H:.so - I W r1 H ,sol . .
Q.qig or r.a.diation dose is a generic term that means absorbed dose,-dose equivalent, effective dose equivalent, committed dose equivalent, committed effective dose equivalent, or total effective dose equivalent, as defined in other paragraphs of this section.
Dose eouivalent (H,) means the product of the absorbed dose in tissue, quality factor, and all other necessary modifying factors at thu location of interest. The units of dose equivalent are the rem and sievert (Sv).
Effective dose eouivalent (H,) is the sum of the products of the dose equivalent to the organ or tissue (H,) and the weighting factors (w,)
applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are irradiated (H, =
Iw,H,) .
Exoosure means being exposed to ionizing radiation or to radioactive material .
. 37
External dose means that portion'of the dose equivalent received from radiation sources outside.the body.
Generally acolicable environmental radiation standards means standards issued by the Environmental: Protection Agency (EPA):under_ the; authority of the - ,
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,_that impose limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material, in the general environment outside the ' boundaries of locations under the control of persons possessing or using radioactive material.
government noenc" means any executive department, commission, independent establishment,: corporation wholly or partly owned by the United States of America, which is an instrumentality of the United States, or any -
board, bureau, division, service, office,: officer, authority,- administration, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government.
Individual means any human being.
Interral dose means that portion of the dose equivalent received from radioactive material taken into the body.
License means a license issued under the regulations in-Title-10, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 30 through 35, 39, 40, 50, 60, 61,.70, or.72.
Licensed material means source material, special nuclear material, or byproduct material received, possessed, used, transferred or disposed of under a general or specific license issued by the Commission.
Licensee means the holder of a license.
- Limits .(dose -limits) means the permissible upper bounds of radiation; doses.
38
9%
v$+,e336 v
(O 9%
t d*, g% IMAGE EVALUATION //' $ <*4,
\
/
g\/o//p (' N >h*
gfp N
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
((//
/
4
/f;D p'
!$$'g
+ %
l.0 !!a M
'g lj HM i.i [m EE Mi l1.25 I.4 l'
. t __ ,
=== J=i.6 150mm >
4 6" >
4 3
b, /. %,,'#,/, ,# 4+es ^
s ek.sff, ,% _ _ ,- _._s , 4f44 ,;[n% ///o//x s 4e' % / 7' , p< g , m _.
x V 9 %._ !
N Oy/
/
[ 4k
<p p y
'. , gh
'!l}%:ma ;
+v -p 0*p<h'e IO
$o & su 4 IMAGE EVALUATION 9 O *t, d 4r b ,;it
/e 4 &p g TEST TARGET (MT-3)
\////7 :.[* $$9 //// t
$p
+ +
1.0 itu wa, pue=n T
o t.
,, g 3
=
j,l hkk
!!d&
l.25 I l.4
- l. -
11l ih =1.6 150mm >
4 6" >
4 e>m %4f ++ _
sA+
,r' ~ ~ ~~
~~
7
+>;;gjy@$j>f > e y
y o
4)3 o, k4
/
,,4, a&'d>v
/
t0 h k* , N ge4'
~
t P. q?A ;'? IMAGE EVALUATION /jj// /
d*
\//o// -]'
gh* TEST TARGET (MT-3) 'j f [@4, *g 4 g)/,,/, y 9 R9 f?
+ <e i.o smm M
~ ,-
[h E?il F 7I
~~ Ill I 8 ldids:
I.25 [ I.4 t
__; b= rbs 150mm >
4-6" >
4 h'
zzzzzg a>>44f 4<S o g~~
~- ~ ~
~~ %g $ 4
- $[Qf[y/by ;e .,e, .
t % o
.a - . , . . , augmeud{ .. . , ,7
L gember of the oublic means an individual in a controlled or unrestricted area. However, an odividual is not a member of the public during any period in which the individ; 1 receives an occupational dose.
Monitorina (radiation monitoring, radiation protection monitoring) means the measurement of radiation levels, concentrations, surface area concentrations or quantities of radioactive material and the use of the results of these measurements to evaluate potential exposures and doses.
Nonstochastic effect means health effects, the severity of which varies with the dose and for which a threshold is believed to exist. Radiation-induced cataract formation is an example of a nonstochastic effect (also called a deterministic effect).
NE means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its duly authorized representatives.
Occupational dose means the dose received by an individual in a restricted area or in the course of employment in which the individual's assigned duties involve exposere to radiation and to radioactive material from licensed and unlicensed sources of radiation, whether in the possession of the licensee or other person. Occupationa! dose does not include dose received from background radiation, as a patient from medical practices, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, or as a member of the general public.
Public dose means the dose received by a member of the public fr(m exposure to radiation and to radioactive material released by a licensee, or to another source of radiation either within a licensee's controlled area or in unrestricted areas. It does not include occupational dose or doses received from background radiation, as a patient from medical practices, or from voluntary participation in medical research programs.
Radiation (ionizing radiation) means alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, neutrons, high-speed electrons, high-speed protons, and 39
7 i
other particles capable of producing. ions. Radiation, as_used in this part, does not include non-ionizing.radi) tion, such as radio- or microwaves, or visible, infrared, or ultraviclet light.
Restrjeted area means an area, access to whr 1s limited by the licensee for the purpose of protecting individuals against undue risks from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials. Restricted area does'not include areas used as residential quarters, but separate rooms in a--
residential building may be set apart as a restricted area.
Site boundary means that line beyond which the land or property is not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the licensee, Source material means--
(1) t.anium or thorium or any combination of uranium and thorium in any physical or chemical form; or (2) Ores that contain, by weight, one-twentieth of l' percent (0.05 per-cent), or more, of uranium, thorium, or any combination of uranium and thorium. Source material does not -include special nuclear material.
Soecial nuclear material means--
(1) Plutonium, uranium-233 uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material that the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of section 51 of the Act, determines to be special nuclear material, but does not include source material; or (2) Any material artificially enriched by any of the foregoing but does not include source material.
Stochastic effects means health effects that occur randomly-and for which the probability of the effect occurring, rather than its severity, is assumed to be a linear function of dose without threshold. Hereditary effects and cancer incidence are examples of stochastic' effects.
L Survey means an evaluation of the radiological conditions and potential hazards-incident to the production, use, transfer, release, disposal, or pre-l 40
m . _
sence of radioactive material or other sources of radiation. When appropriate, such an evaluation includes a physical- survey of the location'of ?
radioactive material and measurements or calculations of levels of radiation,-
or concentrations or qucntities of radioactive material.present.
Total Effective Dose Eauivalent" (TEDE) means' the sum of the. deep-dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures).
Unrestricted area means an area, access to which is neither limited nor controlled by the licensee.
Uranium fuel cycle means the operations of milling of. uranium ore, chemical conversion of uranium, isotopic enrichment of uranium, fabrication of uranium fuel, generation of electricity by a light-water-cooled nuclear power plant using uranium-fuel, and reprocessing of spent uranium fuel to the extent-that these activities directly support the production of electrical power for-public use. Uranium fuel cycle does not include mining operations, operations at waste disposal sites, transportation of radioactive material in~ support of-these operations, and the reuse of recovered non-uranium special. nuclear'and byproduct materials from the cycle.
Whole body means, for purposes of external exposure, head, trunk (including male gonads), arms above the elbow, or legs above the knee.-
41
~
Es-APPENDIX B.
TERMS AND CONCEPTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BEST EFFORT-(TECHNOLOGY-BASED) APPROACH POT FORTH IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT" gest Available Control Technolooy (BACT) - An emission limitation based on the maximum degree of emission reduction which-(considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs) is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques. In no event does BACT permit emissions in excess of those allowed under any-applicable Clean Air Act provisions. Use of the BACT concept is allowable on a case by case basis for major new or modified emissions sources in attainment areas and applies to each regulated pollutant."
Best Demonstrated Technoloov (BOTi - The technology on which the EPA will base the standards, i.e., application of the best technological system of continuous cmission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines-has been adequately demonstrated."
Generally Available Control Technolooies (GACT) - The EPA Administrator may elect under certain circumstances to promulgate standards or requirements which provide for the use of gena: ally available control technologies or management practices to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.**
" Public Law 101-549 (104 STAT. 2399) November 15, 1990, (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990).
" " EPA Glossary of Environmental Terms and Acronym List", OPA-87-017, August 1988.
Clean Air Act Ara sents of 1990, Section 111(a)(1)
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Section 112(d)(5) 42
Maximum Achievable Control Technolooy (MACT) - Emissions limitations based on the best demonstrated control technology or practices in similar sources to be applied to major sources emitting one or more of the listed toxic pollutants.*'
Residual Risk - The quantity of health risk remaining after application of the MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology)."
" Glossary of Terms - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Glossary of Terms - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 43 !
-