ML20198F777
| ML20198F777 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198F769 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-GENERA NUDOCS 9801120151 | |
| Download: ML20198F777 (28) | |
Text
-
)
WORKING PAPE.R REGULATORY GUIDE:
DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING SECTION C.3: REGULATORY POSITION:
LICENSE TERMINATION UNDER RESTRICTED CONDITIONS d;
H Office of Nuclear Regulatory Rggarch U. S. Nuclear kegulatory Comm s.lon W
DISCLAIMER This working paper is being developed for a future NRC Regulatory Guide, "Demonstrnting Compliance with the Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning." It is a working draft only and is subject to extensive change. Its purpose is to obtain comments from NRC staff and others.
It has received only limited NRC staff review and no NRC management approval.
Work'ing paper: lias not received full NRC review cr approval.
September 11,1997 1
9Bj 11g g 970911 GENERAL PDR
}
i 3.0' License termination under restricted conditions License termination under restricted conditions will be pentitted under l
10-CFR 20.1403 if all of the following requirements are met:
i
- 1..
The licensee can demonstrate that either: (1) further reductions in i
residual radioactivity would result in net public or environmental harm, or (2) the residual levels are as low as is reasonably achievable.
(Section 5.0 discusses ALARA analyses and analyses to demonstrate net harm.)
2.
The licensee has made provisions for legally enforceable institutional controls to limit dose.
3, The licensee has provided sufficient iinancial assurance to enable an independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of the site.
4.
A decommissio'ning plan or a license termination plan that indicates the licensee intent to release the site under restricted conditions.
including 1'nformation on how advice from the public has been sought and Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 2
,=ns
--s-e a
v ra.a
,.w,-
. - ~,., -> --
-om.,
cem a---
s e..wn,-e n,v,-,-
r-,r.,,w.nu w,+ n -, w n, -m m e-,+.,-c-w,-r,
-e
,- - svp, -,-,
. incorporated, has been submitted to and approved by the NRC.
3.1 Leoa11v-enforceable institutional controls for license termination under restricted conditions This section describes legally enforceable institutional controls that can be used to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1403(b) and (e). At some sites, institutional controls may include physical controls (i.- e.. -fences, markers, earthen covers, radiological monitoring, and the mainten&nce of those controls). However, the physical controls alone do not meet the requirement in 10 CFR 20.1403(b) for legally-enforceabla institutional controls because they lack a mechanism to allow legal enforcement.
Physical controls can'be used to meet the requirement in 10 CFR 20.1403(b) only when they are used in combination with an instrument that permits legal enforcement.
The control that permits legal enforcement will depend on whether the land is privat ly owned or is government owned or controlled.
For privately-owned land, legally enforceable controls, such as deed restrictions, can be used to ensure enforceability.
Government ownership
- or. control.of the land is itself an acceptable means to ensure enforceability of restrictions on land use.
These controls are explained in greater detail
-in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.
The restricted conditions should be limited to Working paper: lias not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 3
=-
the smallest portion of the site as is appropriate.
The durability of any institutional control used should be appropriate for the degree of hazard. There are two distinct types of institutional--
controls.-governmental and private controls. Governmental institutional controls involve a government using its sovereign powe;3 to impose restrictions on citizens or-sites under its jarisdiction.
Typically these involve restrictions on the use and occupation of-private land:. Among the-more common goverrmental institutional controls are well use restrictions, building permit requirements. and zoning.
Private institutional controls involve individuals or private institutions using their rights to control the use of, or access to, property in which they have a legal interest.
For relatively short lived radionuclides, such as cobalt-60 or cesium-137, and where the annual dose to the average member of the critical group would not exceed 100 mrem if the institutional controls were removed, a simple legally-enforceable proprietary control such as a deed restriction would generally be sufficient, However if the annual dose could exceed 100 mrem if
.the. institutional controis were removed, a more durable institutional control should be used. To meet the requirement in 10 CFR 20.1403(e)(2) for a durable institutional control, an institutional control that involves-government or Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 4
government oversight is generally appropriate. Governmental institutions can be assumed to be more durable (last longer) than private institutions.
Even if the annual dose would not exceed 100 mrem if the controls were renoved, institutional control that involves government should be used when the restrictions are for very long lived radionuclides, such as uranium and thorium and the restrictions would be applied to a large area (more than about 10' acres).
For privately owned property, institutional; controls should be enforceable by_ a sufficient number of parties (see section 3.1.2) and binding on future owners of the land. There should be no provisions in the restriction or in the land use law of the local jurisdiction that would cause the restrictions to end while they are still needed to protect the public.
3.1.1 Government ownershio or control of the land The NRC will generally accept government ownership or control of land as a means to enforce controls on land use and to meet the legally enforceable institutional control requirements in 20.1403(b) and (e).
Ownership or control of the land by federal, state, local, or native American government provides a legal enforcement mechanism because the government, as the owner or
-Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 5
i
K controller of the site, has a legally _ enforceable means to control its use.
This allows the governneat to implement and enforce its own controls on the land. When government ownership or control of the land is used as the enforcement mechanism for 'egally enforceable institutional controk the nature of the controls and restrictions on the land should be clearly stated in some publicly-available legal record fnr the ownership of the property.
3 3.1.2 Restrictions on orivatelv-owned land For privately-ownef, land, legally-enforceable '-~d use (deed' restrictions should be used. The restrictions shouiu be: (1) cy parties identified in the restriction. (2) held by parties other than the landowner (such as local governmental bodies, conservation organizations, adjacent landowners, and other affected parties). (3) enforceable against any owner uf tiu affected property and any person who subsequently acquires the property or acquires any rights to use the property. (4) binding on all future owners of the property. (5) re:orded on the deed, and (6) recorded on land f
records. The licensee should refer to the property law of the particular state in which the land is located to assure that the particular instrument 1
selected will accomplish its intended purpose.
Woriing paper: Has not received full NRC reviev or approval.
September 11,1997 6
r
Tae restriction itself should contain, at a minimum, the following information: (1) a legal description of the property affected. (2) the name or names of the current owner or owners of the property as reflected in public land records. (3) the parties who can enforce the restriction. (4) a ::tatement of the iLzard posed by the residual radioactivity on the portions of the site subject to the restrictions. (5) a statement of the nature of the restriction, limitation, or control c*eated by the restriction. (6) the duration of the restriction. (7) permission to install and maintain physical controls if any are used, and (8) the location of a copy of the final radiation status report that is available for public inspection.
To be acceptable. there are sufficient parties with an viterest and concern in enforcing the restrictions. Wi.an appropriate, the parties should include one or more governments that have responsibility for public health and safety.
In addition to the government, organizations, such as civic organizations and conservation organizations, adjacent landowners, and other persons potentially impacted may also be named. Governments should be identified by level rather than by naming a specific agency (e.g., the County of
).
Parties should be identified by class rather than as named individuals.
For example, a class could be " owners of adjacent properties ~
rather than the names of specific current owners.
Working paper: Has not ra.eived full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 7
I
The restrictions should have a stated duration.
The duration may be a-1 definite specified duration or an indefinite duration.
Definite durations are.
for-a specified number.o(years.(for example.'the number of years until radiological decay has reduced the concentration to a level corresponding to an annual-dose to the average member of the critical group of less tt'at 25
~
mrem without the restrictions).
Indefinite durations are for a time period ending when sone meaturable event has oc<;urred (for example, when natural
~ processes have adequately _ reduced the risk of exposure to the residual radioactivity). Gererally, the licensee should specify the conditions that would allow ending the restriction. -The restrictions should have corrective I
actions to be taken in case they are inadvertently or intentionally violated.
For axample, a no excavation restriction may need to be broken if a water main r
^
- under the site bursts and must be repaired.
A list of possible _ legal mecnanisms to impose use restrictions on the affected property is provided below. The permissibility and effectiveness of
- these. restrictions at a particular site will tepend on the applicable state andlocallaw.
In some cases a particular mechanism may not be permitted in
~
'a particular jurisdiction. _In o'.her cases the mechanism may be permitted but, due to.the applicable property _ law, may not have the desi d effect.
o Worldng paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.-
September 11,1997 8
4 n
i
\\
Tnerefore, the restrictions should be prepared by a professional knowledgeable in local land use laws.
Easements: A restrictive (or negative) easement allows a person to restrict activities on another person's land.
Thus, a restrictive easement can be appropriate for sites terminated under the restricted use provisions of the rule.
A positive easement provides the easement holder with the right to a limited use of land.
An access easement is an example of positive easement.
For example, this easement can give the holder of the easement the right to enter private property and inspect the status of engineered controls and barriers and to make necessary corrections.
Restrictive Covenants: A restrictive covenant is an agreement between landowners, created by contract that either prescribes uses or imposes restrictions.
However, in tr,any jurisdictions restrictive covenants require that the holder of the covenant owns other property which the restriction might directly benefit or retains an ownership interest in the property with the' covenant.
Because of this narrowness in legal enforceability, it may not be suitable in many jurisdictions.
Workir3 paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997
~
9 l
L j. t Equitable Servitudes: cln many jurisdictions _,- equitable servitude-is a type of-land;use :estriction that can have broad applicability and legal
- enforceability. An equitable servitude is a form of land use.
4 restriction that limits future uses of property.
For example, an equitable servitude.could state that land could not be used for
residences, could not be used for farming, or.that wells =for drinking water are not perm;tted on the property.
Deed Notices: A deed notice is not a restriction per se but rather language on the 6'd itself that-indicates that the property contains contamination. This device provides' notice to potential landowners or possessors of the condition of the property that may not otherwise be noticeable through inspection.
!n 'nost cases. a deed notice. by itself, will not create a sufficient restriction because it does not provide for any corrective or remedial action and may not be enforceable absent some other mechanism (i.e.. easement or equitable ser"itude).
Reverter Clauses: This restriction is a clause in the deed by which the property reverts-to a former owner.or some other party if it is ever.
'used in a prohibited way. This type instrument is probably best used in conjunction with other instruments.
-; Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or appmval.
September 11,1997 10
1 l
Zoning: Zoning is a legal designation placed on land by a local government which restricts the types of uses on a particular property.
Zoning may be an acceptable means of restricting land use if the activity to be prevented is not permitted by the zoning.
Because zoning is more readily subject to change. however It should be used with other land restrictions rather than used alone.
3.1.3 Information to be submitted in the decommission 1no olan or license termination olan License termination under restricted conditiont always requires a decommissioning plan or a license termination plan (10 CFR 20.1403(d)). The decommissioning plan or license termination plan should: (1) describe tne legally-enforceable institutional control that is proposed including any proposed maintenarce and monitoring. (2) for privately-owned land, provide a legal evaluation showing that this type of restriction is adequate to accomplish its intended purpose. (3) for privately-owned land, identify the parties that will have the legal right to enforce the restrictions. (4) the derived concentration gulaeline that will be used and how it was determined.
(5) state the proposed duration of the restrictions and explain how the doration was selected.
Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 11 1
~
-. -.- ~.
... ~
x i
The information should be in enough detaillfor the NRC to determine that; (1)-there is. reasonable ~ assurance that doses'will be maintained below 25 imrem/yr with'the institutional controls in place. (2) the institutional controls are legally enforceable, (3) the likelihood of interruptions in the institutional controls is sufficiently low considering the potential radiation hazard, and _(4). further reductions in residun radioactivity to meet unrestricted use would result in net public harm or were not being made-because the residual radioactivity levels are as. low as is reasonably
-achievable.
(These analyses are discussed in Section C.5.0 of this guide.-)
3.1.4 Institutional control jnformation to be submitted in the final radiatica status recort The final radiation status report should include a copy of the land use restriction instrument and sufficient information to verify that it is in force.
3.2 Financial assurance for controls and maintenance o:' those controls Section 20.1403(c) requires that the licensee provide sufficient financial asstrance to enable an independent third party to assume and carry Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
Se! rember 11,1997
- 12 n
. N'.
n~-
l out responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of the site.
In most cases physical controls will require periodic inspection, maintenance, e
or both to ensure that the controls continue to function as planned.-
Financial assurance for those activities will usually be required. On the other hand, government ownership and deed restrictions on privately-owned land do not normally require inspection or maintenance and thus would not normally require financial assurance.
Financial assurance would not normally be necessary to support government activities that are within the scope of activities that governments normally perform.
3.2.1 Indeoendent third oarty The licensee should establish an arrangement with an independent third party to carry out any actions necess6cy to maintain the controls. The arrangement should be for as long a time period as possible. The arrangement should include oversight of the independent third party by a goyernment or the courts.
The independent third party usually should not be the licensee or the landowner in order i.o avoid a conflict of interest.
However, the regulations do specifically permit a government custodian or government owner of a site to carry out the third party responsibilities.
Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 13 l
t____.
1
+
The.independentLthird; party may either perform the necessary work itse'f 1
tor contract for.the performance of the necessary work.- The-independent third party should have the authority to contract for the necessary work, review and i
approve the adequacy of the work performed. 'eplace contractors if necessary, and authorize payment for the work.
However, the independent third party should generally not hold the funds itself so that there can.be a check on the.
performance of the third party, except if the-third party is a government, the licensee may elect to allow the government to hold the funds.
The independent third party may be either a governmental agency, an 9
organization, a bank trust department, or occasionally a private individual.
The independent third party should be an entity who can be trusted to carry out its responsibilities and who does not have a conflict of interest. There shld be a mechanism to replace the independent third party if that becomes necessary.
This may be done by specifying in the agreement conditions under which a government or the courts can replace the independent third party. All records of the official actions of and financial payments made by the independent third party should be open to public inspection.
When license termination is done under the provisions of 10 CFR
.20.1403(e)(2).. the independent third party also has the responsibility to
._ Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
Septem!v i 1,1997 14
... - - ~,
,s n
e, y
y as
s
- perform _ periodic rechecks of the site no less frequently than every 5 years to
- assure-that the institutional controls remain in place._ The periodic rechecks should usually include an on site inspection to verify that the prohibited activities are not being conducted. A review of the deed.to ensure that the
-restrictions are still in force is not usually necessary, but should be
-performed if there is any cause-to believe that the restrictions are rot still properly part-of the ' deed.
3.2.2 Financial assurance mechanisms The licensee should provide a mechanism to pay for the control ead maintenance of the site. Acceptable financial assurance machanisms are listed in 10 CFR 20.1403(c).
Financi'l assurance mechanisms are described in more k
detail in Regulatory Guide 3.66, " Standard Format and Content of Financial
~
Assurance Mechanisms Required for Decommissioning under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40.
70, and 72.~
While Regulatory Guide 3.66 applies specifically to decomissioning. it can also be applied to financial assurance mechanisms for physical controls and maintenance of those controls after license termination.
- However, the examples of-instruments listed in Regulatory Guide 3.66 should be revised to reflect-that the instrument is for financing the controls after
-license termination rather than the costs of decommissioning while the license Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 15
=1s stilliin effect. - The financial assurance funding-for the controls may be-included in the.decomissioning= financial assurance instrument-or'may be a
~
-separate and independent account..
-3,2.3'Information to be submitted in the decommission 1no olan The decomissioning plan or license termination plan should provide a preliminary cost estimate for the control and maintenance of the site by the independent third party.- The decommissioning plan or license termination plan should slso_ describe the proposed financial assurance mechanism.
3.2.4 Information to be submitted in the final radiation status report The final radiation status report should provide a final cost estimate for maintaining the controls.
It should also describe arrangements for permitting public access to records on conducting and financing the controls
- and-maintenance. -Records should be available to the public for 10' years. -It
~ hould also describe a mechanism by which a trustee can be replaced if the s
records are not maintained and availa'ble for public inspection.
3.3 Public narticiostion for release under restricted conditions
?
) Working papr: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 16 --
n
l In order to comply with Part 20.1403(d), a licensee planning to release a site under restricted conditions will have to do the following:
1.
Seek advice from individuals and institutions in the community who may be affected by the decomnr :sioning (affected part' ;).
2.
Provide an opportunity for a comprehensive collective discussion on the issues.
3.
Provide a publicly-available summary of the results of all such discussions. Indedir.g a description of the individual viewoints of the participants on the issues and the extend of agreement and disagreement among the participants on the issues.
4.
Analyze and incorporate, as appropriate, the advice from the affected parties.
5.
Describe in the decommissioning plan or license terminatim plan, submitted to NRC for review, how the advice from'affected parties has been sought and incorporated, as appropriate.
Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
Septembe-11,1997 17 l
l
3'.3.1 Seekina advice from affected carties 3.3.1.1 Identifyino the affected oarties The licensee should first identify the affected parties.
10 CFR 20.1403(d)(2) requires participation by a broad cross section of comunity interests who may be affected by the decommissioning. Affected parties generally include:
Any State government agency or Federal government agency other than the NRC that has jurisdiction and responsibilities with respect to the decommissioning.
Any local government agency that has jurisdiction and responsibilities with r' pect to the decomissioning.
Any Indian tribe or other indigenous people that have treaty or statutory rights with respect to the decommissioned site.
Local comunity, civic, labor, and environmental organizations with an interest in the decomissioning and whose members would be affected by 9
Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 18
i the decommissioning.
Landowners whose property abuts the site or the portion of the site to be rel' eased under restricted conditions or who woul'd otherwise be affected by the decommissioned site or the institutional controls.
Individual residents in the local community who might be affected by the decommissioning.
3.3.1.2 tiethod to seek advice The licensee should establish a method to seek advice from the affected parties on the adequacy of the institutional controls and the sufficiency of financial assurance. Generally, two acceptable methods for licensees to obtain input from affected parties are: (1) through a site-specific advisory board or (2) by seeking advice directly from the affected parties without the use of a site-specific adviscr" rd.
In general the NRC considers that a site-specific advisory board or similar group is the aost effective way to ensure that tile licensee considers the diversity of views in the community.
Small group discussions can be a more effective mechanism than written comments or large public meetings for articulating the exact nature of Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 19
community concerns, determining how much agreement or disagreement there is on
'a particular issue and facilitating the development of acceptable solutions to issues. Also, the type of close interaction resulting from a small group discussion could help in developing a credible relatiuship with the community in which it 1; a3 rating.
It is desirable for the licensee to meet with the NRC staff to describe its intended method to obtain public input prior beginning that effort in order to facilitate NRC approval of the licensee's decommissioning plan. The licensee is also requested to inform the NRC of public meetings and distributions of information to the public because these may cause the public to contact the NRC.
The site-specific advisory board does not have to be a new group formed for the decommissioning. Any group that can perform the functions of a site-specific advisory board h,ay be considered to be a site-specific advisory board.
If an existing or established group in the community has enough participation by the affected parties and can effectively perform the functions of the site-specific advisory board, that group can be the site-specific advisory board.
Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 20
Severa1' situations where the formation of a site-specific advisory board-imay not be appropriate are listed below:'
1.-
- If a-local community is willing to rely on a local government institution to interact with the licensee, that institution may be used to give advice to the licensee.
_2.
The use-of a site-specific advisory board may not be appropriate-when there are not enough participants to serve on a site-specific advisory board (a situation that might occur in areas with low population density) or when the make up of the site-specific advisory board would not represent the diverse interests of the community.
3.
- A site-specific advisory board may not be appropriate if its proceedings are likely to be so disruptive that the beneficial impacts could not be realized, such as if there were participants who would try to obstruct the proceedings rather than constructively-contribute to the proceedings.
The licensee should attempt-to convene a successful site-specific Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 21
1 L:.
advisory board.
However if no site-specific advisory board is convened, the licensee may interact directly with the public. The licensee is required to-ensure that representatives of a broad cross section of community interests.
.ircluding governmental instituti.ons with jurisdiction and responsibilities.
who may be affected by the decommissioning are informed of the decommissionirG.
The licensee is also required to seek-their advice.
The methods and efforts that can be used initially to inform the public of-the decomissioning and inform them th.at their advice is being sought can include.-as appropriate for the specific site:-
1.
Information in mass media, for example, articles, advertisements.
and public service announcements in newspapers, television, and radio.
2.
Flyers passed out or mailings to individual residents close to the site.
3.
Letters'or telephone contacts with governmental agencies and. local comunity and civic organizations.
Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
Septernber 11,1997 22 i
1 4.
Presentations at public meetings.
J The initial information provided to interested affectcd parties should describe the decomissioning process, characterize in simple terms the nature and extent of residual radioactivity at the site, and provide pertinent information about the licensee's request for license termination under restricted conditions.
Information should be provided early enough to allow sufficient time for review by the affected parties.
The initial information and subsequent long, complex studies should be provided preferably at least 30 days before the meeting.
While there should be as much time provided as practical, it is acceptable for Short simple supplemental information to be provided with very little time for review.
When the licensee plans to interact with the public directly, the licensee should establish a method to receive advice from the affected parties.
There should always be a method to receive written comments.
1here should also be a summary of the main oral connents made at public meetings.
There may also be a method to obt31n comer,ts electronically, such as by e-mail or through a web-site. Comments received should be available for public inspection.
Working paper: Has not received full N'RC review or approval.
September 11,199/
23
3.3.1.3 Formina a site-soecific advisorv board The licensee should solicit members to serve on the site-specific advisory board. Membership should reflect the full range of the affected parties' interests by selecting represent 6tives from the parties identified in section 3.3.1.1.
Govern;nent agencies and other organizations should be able to nominate their own representatives to the site-specific advisory board.
The members should be told that they should represent the opinions of the group they represent, rather the their personal opinion.
The site-specific advisory board should normally consist of about 8 to 10 members. The members should be selected as soon as pract! cal after the licensee notifies the NRC of its intention to decommission and terminate the license. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, members of the site-specific advisory board usually should not be paid by the licensee.
However, reimbursement for expenses incurred is acceptable.
The site-specific advisory boaro should: (1) select e chairperson. (2) work with the licensee to identity ar.d obtain information needed in its evaluation process. (3) hold meetings open to the public to provide'an opportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion of the issues. (4) allow the opportunity for public comment at the meetings. (5) respond to Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 24
..~ - -
d
. concerns and questions raised by'the public, making th'e results publicly available.L(6) p/ ovide advice to the licensee,on the topics listed in Section 3.3.1.4. and any other topics the licensee wants discussed. (7); abide by the
. schedule _ established by the licensee to meet NRC requireme"ts, and'(8)' ensure that a publicly available summary of the results of all discussions, including
= a descriptions of the individual viewpoints of the participants on the issues and the' extent of agreement and disagreemnt among the participants on the issues is developed to support the meeting.
The licensee should propose a charter and operating procedures for the site specific advisory board. The' site-specific advisory board should modify.
as necessary. and ad',' the charter and procedures, The licensee should provide reasonable administrative support for site-specific advisory board activities and access to licensee studies and analyses that are pertinent to the proposed decommissioning.
4 The licensee should establish a schedule for the work of the site-specific advisory boar <1 that allows the licensee to obtain advice from the site-specific advisory board. incorporate the advice into the decommissioning
- pla.1 or li'censt termination plan as appropriate, and. submit the decommissioning plan or license termination plan within the 12 months (or Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 25 1
- other approved time) required by NRC regulation.
The schedule should include when the site-specific advisory board should submit its advice -allowing-sufficient time for the licensee to analyze the advice and describe in the decomissioning plan or-license termination plan how the advice was
-incorporated.- as. appropriate.
Members of the site-specific ' advisory board should agree to meet their responsibilities as a condition of membership. The licensee has the-responsibility to assure that the site-specific advisory board is meeting its respassibilities.
If the responsibilities are not met, the licensee should e ther aplace site-specific 6dvisory board members or change to another pe utod to obtain advice from the affected parties, t
3.3.1.4 Advice to be souaht The advice to be sought is whether the institutional controls proposed by-the licensee will:
1) provide reasonable assurance that the total effective dose equivalent from residual radioactivity distinguishable freer background-to the average r.. ember of the critical group will not Working paper: Ilas not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 26
i exceed 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) per year with the controls in place,-
2) be enforceable.
3) not impose undue burdens on the local community or other affected parties, and 4) be backed up by sufficient financial assurance for any necessary control and maintenance of the site by an independent third party, including, if appropriate, a governmental custodian of a site.
3 3.2 Comorehensive collective discussion of the issues Representatives of all affected parties should be provided an opportunity for a comprehensive collective discussion on the issues.
If a site-specific advisory board is used, its meetings should be open to the public with adequate public notice of the location, time, date, and agenda for meetings (at least two weeks in advance).
If the licensee will interact with the public directly, the licensee should hold at least three public meetings for discussion of the issues.
Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 27
u A sumary of'the;results of all collective discussions-. including _ a-
. description of the' individual-viewpoints of_ the participants on the issues and the extent of agreement and_ disagreement among the_ participants'on the issues,
~
should-be made publicly available.
3.3.3 Analyzino and incorocratina the advice If a site-specific advisory board is used, it should provide its advice
- on the issues in 10 CFR 20.1403(d)(1) to the licensee.
If the licensee interacts directly with the public, the licensee should analyze all advice received.
The licensee should analyze the advice incorporate.the advice, as appropriate, and provide a justification (in the decommissioning plan) for advice that was not incorporated.
3.3.4 Information to be submitted in the decommissionina olan or license termination olan The decommissioning plaa or license termination plan should describe the following:
4
.1)-
The interactions that took place between the licensee and the Working paser: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 28
,y g
w wi gr e
w--t*V-
'+M**
P
l affected parties and the information provided to affected parties.
A description of the site-specific advisory boat d used to obtain advice should be included. This section should also describe meetings and workshops, mailings, and other pertinent interactions with the affected parties.
2)
The advice received from affected parties on the issues in section 3.3.1.2 above.
This section should indicate the results of all discussion on these issues including a description of the individual viewpoints of the participants on the issues and the extent of agreement and disagreement among the participants on the issues.
3)
How the advice was incorporated, as appropriate, following the analysis of that advice. 'ihis section should include the recommendations form the affected parties and indicate how those recommendations were addressed along with the technical basis used to address them.
4)
If a site-specific advisory board was not formed, explain why creation of a site-specific advisory board was not appropriate.
Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 29 l
l
'The infonnation in tJie decommissioning plan or. license termination plari l
-l Tshould be-sufficient for the NRC to make a finding that there was a timely and l
meaningful opportunity for advice from affected parties to be-considered and' f
-that there is a reasonable assurance that the institutional controls and.
financial assurance are adequate for maintaining doses below the 25 mrem (0.25
.mSv) annual limit, will be enforceable, and will not impose undue burdens on the' local community and other affected parties, i
i Working paper: Has not received full NRC review or approval.
September 11,1997 30 1