ML20141G897
| ML20141G897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/12/1997 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141G895 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-046A-C, SECY-97-46A-C, NUDOCS 9705230069 | |
| Download: ML20141G897 (3) | |
Text
.: t ,
'+'- :
g 7.7.- g M A T ~.O N "6 TE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle,. Secretary
~FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-046 - FINAL RULE ON RADIOLOGICAL .
CRITERIA FOR LICENSE TERMINATION Approved. y( Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
I approve the staff recommendation to publish the final rule in the Federal
- Register with a few revisions. The staff is to be commended for the outstanding job of finalizing this rule on such a short schedule. It represents a great effort on the part of many people. I understand that several editorial comments provided by my staff havgbeen resolved. In addition, I have the attached policy related commentsy, 7
i L SIG14TUREj
. Release Vote / v' / NWyd IO 9' DATE Withhold vote / -/'
Entered on "AS" 'Yes / No f
9705230069 970521 it .
PDR COMMS NRCC t..
CORRESPONDENCE PDR b
- 1. The staterrents of consideration and the rule text refer to the dose entena as constraints. The constraint rulemaking very carefully defined constraints as values above which no NRC action would be expected. Rather, the requirement was reporting and corrective actions. Neither is appropriate in this case. This is really a limit. Calling it a constraint could have the effect of making the air effluent constraint a strict limit, which was never intended and should be avoided. As such, a term such as
' single source limit' or ' single source enterion* or some other equivalent phrase should be substituted for constraint throughout the document.
- 2. The Proposed Rule Statements of Consideration says 1n each scenario. the Cntical Group is an individual or relatively homogeneous group of individuals expected to receive the highest exposure within the assumptions of the particular scenario. The average member of the Critical Group is that individual who is asst.med to represent the most likely exposure situation based on prudently conservative exposure assumptions and parameter values
- This concept seems to have been lost. This leaves the reader thinking the average member of the criticai group is the average member of the exposed population. In order to eliminate any ambiguity, the previous language should be restored in the final rule SOC and clanfied iri the definition in 5 20.1003.
3 Section 20.1402(a) of the proposed n;le iriJicated that the objective of decommissioning is to reduce residual radioactivity in structures, soils, groundwater, and other media at the site so that the concentration of each radionuclide that could contribute to residual radioactaity is indistinguishable from the natural background radiation concentration for that nuclide and location. This goal expresser the overarching view that, to the extent reasonable, licensees should restt.e the environment to its original condition when they conclude licensed activities. It is hard to argue that we would want licensees to do otherwise. Public comment on this goal was very positive. As such, the language should be redered. I recognize that thh will have little practical effect on actual deco.nmissionings. However, I think it is important to express the philosophical belief that to the extent reasonable, we expect licensees to fully remediate a site prior to license terminaJon.
- 4. The final rule should make it clear that the dose enterion is to be calculated (over 1000 years) for licensed material that is distinguishable from background, including parents and all progeny. This specifically includes radon that is a decay product of licensed material.
- 5. The staff should submit a recommendation to the Commission for approvalif Altemate Cntena are to be granted. After sufficient experience with th' orovision is gained, the staff may recommend that the Commission eliminate this req. .ement or delegate authority for approval of attemate criteria.
- 6. For Uranium Mills, the language of the final rule has been changed such that it would allow virtually double the dose that results from the EPA radium standard (5 and 15 pCi/g radium). This could result in ooses of nearly 1 rem / yr to members of the public with no institutional controls and no public , articipation. This approach is unacceptable. The final rule should exempt uranium mills based on the difficulties associated with applying this standard to relatively smay licensed facilities within large ]
l l
i
tracts of lands remediated to EPA standards under UMTRCA, where doses may be 10 to 40 times higher than otherwise allowed by this rule. The staff should provide to the Commission an analysis of the full range of options for uranium mill specific radiological cnteria for license termination, and pertinent recommendations to adequately protect public health and safety.
- 7. Unlike uranium mills, In-Situ Leach facilities (ISL) do not have surrounding large tracts of land that are subject to separate, less stringent standards. Given the options of restricted release or altemate criteria, exemption from this rule for ISL sites does not appear warranted. These facilities should be subject to the generic radiological enteria for license termination contained in this rulemaking.
- 8. The Statements of consideration indicate that release of portions of the site are permitted, and that these released portions.would not have to be revisited at the time of license termination. I disagree. Dose calculational n adels such as RESRAD or DandD are area dependant. That is, the larger the area, the smaller the concentration of radionuclides dominated by agricultural pathways that would be permissible. So the effect of releasing small portions of the site individually, is that larger concentrations of certain radionuclides would be permitted than if the entire licensees facility were being released at one time. There are several ways to deal with this area dependence.
Acceptable concentrations in soil could be c.niculated with the assumption that these levels would exist on the entire site area. If this were cone, no combination of fractional site releases would result in a concentration that would exceed that which would be allowable for the entire site. Another possibility is to include any residual radioactivity at previously released portions of the site (decay con'ected as appropriate) in the source term considered for the final release of the entire site. It wculd also be reasonable to disregard r3sidual radioactivity in soil remaining in previously released portions of sites if the radionuclides present contribute no more than 10% of their dose by agncultural cathways, or if the area of the released portion is sufficiently large that the resident farmer could produce 100% of the diet for one person. There are probably other possible soLJons to this situation. The staff should ensure that this issue is thoroughly addressed in the guidance for the rule and that the statements of consideration accurately presents the possibility that released portions might have to be revisited at the time of license termination, depending on how compliance was demonstrated for those portions of the site.
- 9. The staff has proposed that this rule should not be a matter of strict Agreement State compatibility. I disagree, if a State establishes a more stringent standard, this could l result in transferring risk from one State to another. The State with the more stringent ;
standard would have a slightly reduced radiation risk, but the State to which any ;
additional slightly contaminated soil or building materials would be shipped would have l a slightly increased radiation risk. In addition, those States through which such material is needlessly transported, would be subject to significantly increased risk from transportation accidents. Therefore, this rule should be a strict matter of compatibility.
- 10. This rule is being completed on an expedited basis, and as such, guidance documents are not available to the Commission for review. Since the guidance can have a
]
significant impact on how this important rule 's implemented, the staff should provide all guidance documents to the Commission fcr review and approval prior to their i publication, no later than February 21,1998. l 1
I