ML20207M591
| ML20207M591 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/22/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207M559 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-046-C, SECY-99-46-C, NUDOCS 9903190130 | |
| Download: ML20207M591 (9) | |
Text
- ...
1 A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE RESPONSE SLEf,T l
TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-046 - RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR LICENSE TERMINATION OF URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES Approved I Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
l d
SIGNATURE U" () ls 3 D, il DATE Entered on "AS" Yes [ No l
!!R244 M8! 7 CORRESPONDENCE PDR I
Ya knoi V
a 8
disposal on a site-specific basis. One of these commenters also pointed out that uranium mill sites will be tumed over to the custodial care of the Department of Energy (DOE) or the State for long-term care, effectively eliminating substantial portions of these sites from the public i
exposure pathways. In addition, sorse of the vicinity properties remediated with neighboring abandoned mills (under the DOE's's Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project) have deoosits of contamination (Ra-226, Th-230, or U-nat) above the limits remaining under the supplemental standards provisions of 40 CFR 192.21.
A. Response: The NRC agrees with the need to develop regulations that are protective of public healih and safety with regard to decommissioning of UR facilities. NRC has previously addressed considerations related to radioactivity and dose to the public, public health aspects, fraction of the 100 mremlyr (1 mSv/yr) dose, and the rationale for excluding the radon dose in Sections A.2.2.1, A.2.2.2, and F.6 of the July 21,1997, federal Recister notice (62 FR at 39060-64 and 39082) for the final rule for 10 CFR Part 20, subpart E; those discussions remain applicable to this final rulemaking.
As discussed above, the UR facilities have large areas contaminated with radium in soils where the existing radium standard is applied. The NRC believes that it is impor1 ant to promulgate cleanup ctandards for other residual radionuclides that are consistent with the radium cleanup standards. Use of such an approach would result in a common dose criterion across an entire UR site, both for those areas contaminated with radium and for those areas contaminated with uranium and thorium. As noted above, the 5 pCilg radium s'.andard was promulgated by EPA for UR sites. The 5 pCilg radium value has also been recommended as an l
exemption level by the Board of Directors of the Conference of Radiation Control Program i
Directors (October 1998) for the Suggested State Regulations on technologically enhanced y p)..# vt.
Y naturally occurring materials.
l
L vaI m M
.I,,
y,.. l.hc f*"*'*gu W W h 9
i The NFtC staffs preliminary dose modeling ndicates that at typical UR facilities, where the background radiation results in doses of over 200 mremlyr (2.0 mSv/yr), the Re 226 gAsel standard of 5 pCilg (0.19 Bq/g) could typically result in a potentiafdose on the order of 20 to 35
+1 e shesp unku A
+1.o sr % I yu g,
mrem /yr (0.2 to 0.35 mSv/yr){ Although it is potr.,ible that some site-specific parameter values and subsurface contamination could result in a higher benchmark dose than that estimated by the staff for the various scenarios, the staff has high confidence that a site-specHic dose using the benchmark approach will typically be a small fraction of 100 mrem /yr (1 mGvlyr), and in all cases will not exceed 100 mremlyr (1 mSv/yr). The rule also requires licensee's to demonstrate that doses are ALARA whien should result in a potential dose of less than 25 mremlyr (0.2 mSv/yr) from the residual Ra-226 on the remediated site for most sites. Therefore, the potential health risk should be similar to the NRC dose limit established for other facilities in Part 20, subpart E, and approximate the level suggested in the EPA comment.
The radium benchmark dose modeling results are greater than the 5 pCilg (0.19 Bq/g) radium modeling results reported by the EPA. The main reason for the difference in results is that the EPA modeled a much smaller area of contamination than that used by NRC staff 2
2
. (100 m versus 404,687 m ).pWhat is not factored into the dose modeling is the low probability )(
of anyone constructing a hou e or growing a large garden on the areas of residuct contamination a.t these facilities. The UR facilities are in semi-arid (7-15 inches (18-39 cm) annual precipitation), sparsely populated areas (1-13 persons / mile (0.4-5 persons /km )) where r
2 mining and grazing (3 cows / acre (1 cow /1348 m )) are the main land uses.
2 The existing regulatory framework does not provide criteria for the cleanup of radionuclides other than radium in soil. Also, the existing guidance does not provide dose criteria, so additional criteria are warranted. In areas where there is more than one residual radionuclide, the benchmark cose would apply to the sum of all radionuclides present in that
\\
m.,ino m
- nu 6 &m - u J s spud Ross /o.ot vems o.2c') w wa tm esci A ro ot rie, + valo e. (o i ve,s.
- o. 25 -e6) MA gewel, hora 5o e' M c I'+ "' P 4""I clat -
10 Y
{
area (i.e., radium, uranium, thorium, etc.). This is indicated in the rule text, and in draft guidance d
for implementation of the benchmark approach, wheie it is stated that, for each 100 m area, t se 2
j unity rule will apply such that the sum of the ratios for each radienuclide of the concentration present to the concentration limit may not exceed "1" (i.e., unity). The rule text and guidance j
pea k.
lY also stipulate that the total effectiva dose equivalent limit is based on the m i.m.;dannual dose y
'within a 1000 year period This time frame is in keeping with the EPA regu! story time frame for these'fccilities (40 CFR Part 192)k & ue nIe red: i el #r e rthed <dmp.
N.
I Only portions of uranium mill sites and no portion of ISL facilities are anticipated to be 4
l tumed over to the custodial care of Govemment entities. The radium standard applies to all m
a l
areas of a site except the disposal cell, regardless of future use. The NRC staff plans a similar i
{
approach for the criteria for other radionuclides. The restricted use of areas that wili be in i
perpetual custodial care could be considered under the ALARA provision, if cleanup is difficult or expensive in these areas.
B. Radionucl%s at UR Sites are.Naturativ Occurrino and of Variable Concentration in Nature Several commenters indicated that the residual radionuclides at UR sites (uranium, thorium, radium) are naturally occurring in the local environment and that there is significant variability in soil background concentrations of these radionuclides, in particular at UR facilitieu where uranium pit mines or mineral outcrops exist. This leads to variability in potential dose such that the 25 mrem /yr (0.25 mSv/yr) dose in Part 20 subpart E would be indiscemible in %e natural variability of background at a UR site. Any concentration standard T.ust account for the significant variability in background and state that the limits are for " con :entrations above background
- at the different areas of the site. Also, two commenters indicateo bt a statistical
)
12 Distinguishing in situ ore from processed ore material can be a problem on some sites and is addressed in the guidance. The NRC will regulate only NRC-licensed materials remaining at UR facilities, not in situ ore or mine waste. In determining compliance with the new j
regulation, the NRC staff will consider 10 CFR 40.42()) and (k) that state, in part, that as a final i
step in decommissioning, the licensee shall demonstrate that the site is suitable for release and 1
that reasonable effort has been made to eliminate residual radioactive contamination.
C. Considerations of Risks. Costs. and Benefits of Cleanup i
Several commenters pointed out that the actual risk of excavating and moving dirt i
(construction and transport accident risks that are actuarial) must be compared against health j
[
risks of radiation exposure wnich have not been demonstrated below 10 remlyr (0.1 Sv/yr).
i The risk of cleaning up areas to below regional background levels would likely result in net i
human health and environmental detriment. Lowering of the current radium standard for uranium and thorium could cause undue economic burden to industry and the Govemment based on the need for cleanup of large soil areas and would not result in significant (if any) risk reduction.
- At ISL facilities, lowering dose criteria could result in large areas retroactively becoming disposal areas requiring substantial and costly cleanup, and could inhibit efficiency of mining if irrigation practices with restoraton fluids were effectively prohibited.
C. Response: The NRC considered the risk of the cleanup work in the regulatory analysis. The radium standard is not lowered by the rulemaking; therefore, there is no undue economic burden for licensees. Providing a radium benchmark dose standard for U-nat and Th-
y j
4
~. -
I D R A'E.T a
i NRC ISSUES CLEANUP CRITERIA I
FOR URANIUM MILLS 1'
1 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to provide criteria for the cleanup of uranium and thorium in arall and radioactivity on building 1
surfaces during the decommissioning of uranium mills and other uranium edraction facilities.
The criteria represent upper limits on the radiation dose levels that would be permitted as a result of uranium and thorium remaining at NRC-licensed uranium i
facilities after decommissioning. The NRC previously used agency guidance documents i
to decide whether to approve cieanup and decommissioning plans and determine if the l
1 license could be terminated.
j The new dose criteria are based >n the existingpoil standard for radium. The E P A '
~
. ( Environmental Protection Agency prevtously set standards requiring that the concentration of radium at uranium mills after decommissioning may not exceed nahd v.
5ual.aNm background leve by more than 5 picocuries per gram in the first 6 inches of soil, and 15 picocuries per gram for every subsequent 6. inch layer. These standards have already p
been incorporated into NRC's regulations.
The new standard for uranium and thorium uses the radiation dose from radium th God
-t w3 as a benchmark. Licensees who are decommissioning their uranium facilitKwill have to j
j j
calculate the radiation dose from radium over 1000 years for their particular site. They j
f
' will then have to remediate their site so that the dose from NRC regulated uranium and w
- ~. - -....
thorium remaining on site after decommissicning will not excead the dose allowed for 4
radium. A N
T-)in addition, licensees will be required to demonstrate 4
i NRC regulated materials are as low as is reasonably schievable.
In the unlikely event that application of this benchmark standard would result in a dose exceeding 100 milliremslper year, the Cormnl55len wlll specificelly review thr/
X
/
M s
- !!=t!en) The 100-millirem dose is the NRC annual limit for members of the public. The y
average annual dose to an individual in the Unit d States from natural;;ur;; is about
,v 300 millirem [.
\\> e t yrewek re. Aiakm i
g x
m ssM4a-aaA N.
b sdn bhe h.
aguw.o Q a,,c.4 a~so y y
< &i,,, u a m t a m pe { ca n al cl o e h an s
,;s A,a. w \\ (< w ~ qfye)
\\
h, b.orwo A a gic <b ma
- b. lw.m 2 2.,A car e.
39
.mm p,, ya.
e
tA m *o a3 UNITED STATES 7
D E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666-0001 g, ear /
[hnhed h*)W H 6 ' *-
aneArk 4v % o The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairmari (Nd d"5' Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
0.c.
Th uclear Reg alatory Commission (NRC) has sent to the Office of the Federal X
Register for pu'olication tne enclosed revisions to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 40 regarding decommissioning of uranium recovery (UR) facilities to provide specific radiological criteria for decommissioning of lands and structures. The final rule is intended to enhance the efficiency and consistency of license termination decisions. This final rule completes the Commission's efforts that began in 1997 when it issued a final rule in Parts 20,30,40,50,70, and 72 for decommissioning of other NRC-licensed facilities but decided to exclude criteria for UR facilities and instead request additional public comment so as to provide full consideration of the issues involving decommissioning of UR facilities.
y-8 LW%&
L Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosures:
- 1. Public Announcement for Final Rule
- 2. Federa! Register Notice for Final Rule cc: Senator Bob Graham i
own q^%
UMTED STATES y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WiSHINGTON. D.C. 200GMW1
%.....s" o
I dvVed ch9n w-n eg,a 4 N lam i
Mr. Robert P. Murphy 4 % w f)cefer).
General Counsel i
General Accounting Office Room 7175 441 G. St., NW Washington, DC 20548
Dear Mr. Murphy:
0,5.
j Pursuant to Su E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996,5 U.S.C. 801, th uclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is submitting a final rule regarding X
decemmissioning of licensed uranium recovery facilities to provide specific radiological criteria for the decommissioning of lands and structures. The final rule is intended to enhance the efficiency anc consistency ct iicense termination decisions.
We have determined that this rule is not a " major rule' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). We have confirmed this determination with the Office of Management and Budget.
Enclosed is a ccpy of the final rule that is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The Regulatory Flexibility Certification and Regulatory Analysis are included in the final rule. This final rule is scheduled to become effective 60 days after publication in the i
Federal Reaister.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Final Rulo w-