ML20141G907
| ML20141G907 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman 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 9705230074 | |
| Download: ML20141G907 (4) | |
Text
- ..
AFFI . RMATI'ON VOTE ;
~
RESPONSE SHEET ,
f f
TO: ' John C. Hoyle, Secretary '
FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON SUB 'ECT : SECY-97-046A- FINAL RULE ON RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR LICENSE TERMINATION ,
^
Approved' x w/ comments Disapproved Abstain :
i Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
1 SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS l 1
i 4
E 1
l
_/a f # [w G--~'
I SIGNATURE
' Release Vote / X-/ May 7, 1997 DATE ;
Withhold vote / -
/ l Entered on'".AS" Yes X No
.)
I l
.i 9705230074 970521
C2MMENTS OF CHAIRMAN JACKSON ON SECY-97-046A I approve for publication in the Federal Register the final rule on radiological criteria for license termination as proposed in SECY-97-046A subject to the following comments and modifications.
- Dose Criteria. I support the staff's recommendation in SECY-97-046A that the dose criterion for release of a site for unrestricted use be 25 mrem / year. The staff's recommendation of 25 mrem / year as the dose criterion is based, in part, on recommendations contained in ICRP No. 60, NCRP No. 116, and the Draft Federal Radiation Protection Guidance as well as the recommendation of the ACNW. The criterion of 25 mrem / year, in combination with the ALARA principle, should assure adequate protection of public health and safety.
The estimated risk level, using the linear non-threshold model, from constant exposure to dose levels of 15 - 25 mrem / year results in a lifetime risk of fatal cancer of about 2 to 4x10E-4. The difference in risk between the two stahlards la cmall.
Given the small difference in risk between 15 and 25 mrem / year, I support the staff's proposed standard of 25 mrem / year.
- Separate Groundwater Protection Standard. I support the elimination of a separate groundwater protection standard in the final rule as recommended by the staff because an all-pathways standard, with ALARA, provides adequate protection of public health and safety. A single pathway standard is unnecessary. The 25 mrem / year dose standard and the ALARA principle would apply to all pathways, including those involving clean-up of drinking water.
Furthermore, the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) contained in EPA's National Primary Drinking Water regulations as set forth in 40 CFR Part 141 do not cover all radionuclides, and do not provide a consistent risk standard for different radionuclides, as would a single dose, all-pathways standard as set forth in the final rule. For these reasons,I believe that a 25 mrem / year dose criterion plus ALARA for all-pathways will protect public health and safety.
- Alternate Site Criteria. I agree with the staff's proposed use of alternate site criteria as set forth in section 20.1404 of the proposed final rule. This provision of the proposed final rule would permit the Commission to terminate a license using alternate a
criteria greater than the dose criteria in sections 20.1402 and 20.1403 under certain conditions. Section 20.1402 would permit license termination for unrestricted use if the licensee complies with the 25 mrem / year standard in addition to ALARA. Section 20.1403 would permit licensees to terminate their license for restricted use for higher radiological dose levels than the 25 mrem standard in Section 20.1402 provided certain conditions are met.
I believe that by codifying a provision for alternate site criteria, as outlined in Section 20.1404, the potential for licensees to seek exemptionc from the requirements of the regulation should be greatly reduced. I would, however, require that the staff seek Commission approval to apply the requirements of Section 20.1404 on a case-by-case basis and that during the public comment period, as required by Section 20.1405(a), the staff solicit the comments of EPA.
This is appropriate to ensure that the conditions under which alternate site criteria are applied are special circumstances. In summary, I approve the inclusion of the alternate criteria in the final rule subject to the modifications described above.
- Public Particioation. The rule, as originally proposed, contained a requirement for establishment of a site specific advisory board (SSAB) when a licensee planned to comply with the regulations under the restricted use provision (20.1403). The proposed final rule deletes the requirement for the establishment of an SSAB. Instead of an SSAB, the proposed final rule includes a general provision to seek advice from the affected community. The original intent of establishing an SSAB was to provide a structured and focussed system for obtaining public views on those applications for license termination under the restricted use provision of the rule. Furthermore, the requirement to establish an SSAB when a licensee applies the restricted use provisions would ensure a consistency in the application of these regulations.
And since the SSAB provisions would only be applicable to those licensees that are seeking license termination under the restricted use provisions, the establishment of individual SSAB's should be limited in number.
However, I f avor modifying the final rule in a manner which increases public participation.in a less prescriptive and formal manner. To balance these dual objectives, I believe that the final rule should include provisions that require the licensee to provide for (1) participation by representatives of a broad cross section of community interests who may be ;
affected by the decommissioning; (2) an opportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion of the issues by l l
e the participants represented; and (3) a publicly available summary of the results of all such discussions, including a description of the individual viewpoints of the parricipants on the issues and the extent of agreement and disagreement among the participants on the issues.
- Acreement State Comoatibility Level. The staff recommends that the regulations set forth in SECY 046A be Division 2 matters of compatibility. The difference between Divisions 1 and 2 is that Division 1 compatibility would require that Agreement States adopt the requirements verbatim. Division 2 compatibility would allow states to set more restrictive standards if it desired. Some states already have established more stringent standards for license termination. By making the regulations Division 1, these states would have to amend their existing regulations to standards that are less stringent. This could be difficult for those states.
Since Division 2 compatibility sets threshold standards, levels we believe to be protective of public health and safety, which allow states to adopt more stringent standards if desired, I agree with the recommendation to categorize the final regulations as Division 2 matters of compatibility.