ML20212E846
| ML20212E846 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1997 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9711040083 | |
| Download: ML20212E846 (68) | |
Text
.
4 Ml31NAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
Title:
BRIEFING ON SITE DECOMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN (SDMP) PUBLIC MEETING Location:
Rockville, Maryland 4
Date:
Wednesday, October 29,1997 Pages:
1 - 48 ct'
$Fo2 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I St., N.W., Suite 300
~
Washington, D.C.20005 (202) 842-0034 Q} ((\\\\\\\\\\\\$h 0
971029 PT9.7 PDR
gy
, e:
I s
DISCLAIMER This~is'an unofficial transcript of a meeting of-the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on October 29, 1997 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland'._ The meeting was open to
+
public. attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed,: corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general-informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record'of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this-transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or
-beliefs.
No pleading or other_ paper mayfbe filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to,-any statement or argument contained herein,fexcept as the Commission may authorize.
-g-1-
[*
.1-
= UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR-REGULATORY. COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON 5
SITE DECOMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN (SDMP)
(-
6 7
PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 Commission Conference Room
-10 United States Nuclear Regulatory 1 11 Commission 12 11555 Rockville. Pike
'13 Rockville, Maryland
-14 15
-Wednesday, October 29~,
1997 16 17 The Commission met in open-session, pursuant-to-18 notice,-at-2500 p.m.,-the Honorable SHIRLEY A'.
- JACKSON, 19-Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
20 21 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
22 SHIRLEY A.~ JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 23-EDWARD McGAFFIGAN,.JR.,-Commissioner 24 GRETA J. DICUS, Commissioner 25-NILS J.DIAZ, Commissioner ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300..
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel 3
L. JOSEPH CALLAN, EDO 4
DAVID FAUVER, NMSS 5
JOIDI GREEVES, NMSS 6
JOHN HICKEY, NMSS
-7 CARL PAPERIELLO, NMSS 8
NICHOLAS COSTANZA, Office of Research 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
3 o
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
(2:00 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, good afternoon, ladies 4
and gentlemen.
Today the NRC staff will update the 5
Commission on the status of the site decommissioning 6
management plan, or the SDMP, as it is called.
7 The staff last briefed the Commission on this 8
program on October 7, 1996.
Along with this briefing, the 9
staff has prepared a commission, SECY-97-242, that provides 10 an update of the significant SDMP activities that have taken 11 place during the past year.
12 The paper details progress on removing sites from 13 the SDMP and notes that eight sites have been removed since 14 September 1996, although three of the eight sites were 15 transferred to Massachusetts when it became an agreement 16 state earlier this year.
17 The staff has indicated in that SECY paper that is 18 proposing that this be the last SDMP report to the 19 Commission and that the SDMP terminology be phased out.
The 20 staff plans to call for an annual briefing of the Commission 21 on the implementation of the License Termination Rule and
.22 the program on decommissioning cases.
23 The Commission looks forward to hearing more about 24 the staff's future plans during today's briefing.
I 25 understand that copies of staff's paper and the briefing ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 I
(A
1 4
1 charts-are available at the entrances to the meeting room.
2
=And so,-unless my colleagues have1anything to add, l:0 Mr. Callan,:would you please proceed.
-4 MR. CALLAN:
Thank you, Chairman.- Let me'take a
-5 minute to-do some introductions.
Of course,-you all know 6
Carl-Pap 3riello, theLoffice director for the-Office of NMSS.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
No.
8 --
[Langhter.]
9~
MR. CALLAN:
And under Carl, we have John-Greeves, 10' who is-the director of the Division of Waste Management.
-11 Under --
-12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Don't know him, either.
3
.13 MR'. CALLAN:
Under John, we have John Hickey, who 14 is the branch chief for the Low Level Waste and 15 Decommissioning Branch, and under John Hickey, we have David 16 Fauver, who is a senior project manager and health 17-physicist.
He just told me he has been working these issues 18 since 1991, s
19 MR. FAUVER:
Correct.
20-
'MR. CALLAN:
Also, I would like to introduce, 21-behind me, next to Hugh Thompson, Nick Costanza and his
~ 2 2.
. staff from the Office of Research, who were-involved with R23
-the recently published rule on radiological criteria for 24 license termination.
25 Chairman, the staff has been doing this ann'sl ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
m
'5
-1L briefing since 1990.
This one, as you pointed out,_is a 2
transition type of briefing, and you correctly stated it 3l
-that the staff would like to transition from. reviewing, 4_
managing site-specific issues and generic issues on 5
decommissioning within the framework of SDMP to managing 6
those same issues in-the context of the new rule on i
7 radiological criteria for license termination.
[
8 The staff will also discuss _ progress on Direction L
9
_ Setting-Issue No. 9, which_is the DSI on Decommissioning.
l-[
- f 10 With that, I'll turn the meeting over to John i
i 11 Hickey; who is the chief of the Low Level Waste and 12 Decommissioning Branch who will be the primary presenter.
13 John.
14 MR. HICKEY:
Thank you, Mr. Callan, Madame 15 Chairman, Commissioners.
16 Could I have slide 2, please.
-17
[ Slide.]
18 First, I would like to give you an overview-of 19 what we plan to present-today.
We'll go over some 20 background on.the problems that needed to be addressed that 21 brought about the SDMP and some of the early progress and I
22
- accomplishments we've made.under the SDMP.
23 You mentioned that we briefed you a year ago and 24-there were some specific actions that you asked us to take 25-to follow up on that briefing, and we'll summarize the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I-Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
6
- 1-actions we took to follow up on that.-
2 You also mentioned our proposal-to' phase out_SDMP 3
. terminology and treatment of SDMP as a distinct program, and 4_
we'll tell-you more about why.we feel this is.the
_ 5_ -
appropriate time.
6 Two of the significant developments _over the last 7
year that are pushing us in that direction were the recent 8
publication of the License Termination Rule -- and we'll 9
talk to you about what we've been doing on that and where 10 we're going to go on that -- and,-also, the Conmission has a 11 strategic assessment-effort 12 We have a specific Direction Setting Issue, No. 9, 131
,x is pointed _directly toward decommissioning, and we'll 14 all you what we're doing in-that area,-and then we'll 15
- present our. forward view and tell you where we're going-to 16 go from here.
17 Could I have the next slide, please.
18
[ Slide.]
19 To give you some history,, going back into 1980's 12 0 and even earlier, the agency recognized the need to improve
- 21 our decommissioning-program.
In 1988 -- this was before the 22 SDMP -- we pub.1.ished a Financial Assurance Rule, and-it, for 23 the first time,-exclusively' required licensees to have 24 decommissioning plans and to estimate what it would cost to 25 decommission a facility: and provide financial assurance to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
7
- 1 1
_ assure that there was money available'when,the facility
[
2 needed to beidecommissioned.- So that was a first. big step.
~
3-in' improving our decommissioning plan._
4 But then,.in 1989, there was congressional 5.
scrutiny of the-program.
There was a-General Accounting l
6 Office-report that:had numerous criticism-or our program,
-7 and there was a congressional hearing that then-Chairman 8
Carr test'ified at.
9J Some of the issues that were. discussed were the r
10 fact that1we.did not have clean-up standards in the 11 regulations; we did not have any-timeliness requirements 12 that required licensees.that were ready to be c13 decommissioned. -The! facilities.weresinactive.
There was 14 Lnothing to compel them to proceed with decommissioning, and-15' zin many cases it was in the licensees' interest not to take
'16; any action because it was very expensive to pursue 17 decomadssioning.
18 The GAO also pointed ~out that!the licensees had 4
i 19 --
incomplete records with respect to where radioactive.
=20
-material-had been used end what the extent of contamination 211 was, and there was nothing that required the licensees to 122 keep complete records.
23 The licensees who were decomnissioning in'many 24-cases were doing inadequate surveys, and so.they did not 25, identify the contamination that existed, and in many cases, L
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters b.
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
,,m+-.
v..
8 1
a facility could be released without an adequate survey.
2 Another example of something that was pointed out 3
is under our former regulations. licensees could bury 4
radioactive waste without NRC approval, and the GAO 5
expressed some concerns that some of these burial sites 6
might still pose rick, and I'm sure you will recall that 7
from previous briefings.
They wanted us to go back and 8
assess those risks.
9 So the Commission, following this Congressional 10 review -- and there was already recognition that we needed 11 to keep making improvements -- directed the staff to take 12 some concerted action to improve the program, and we 13 developed the fir:t SDMP and presented it to the Commission 14 in 1990, and that listed the sites that were of concern --
15 there were 40 sites -- and it identified regulatory 16 improvements that were needed that came out of the 17 Congressional review and other sources and enumerated the 18 actions the staff planned to take to make those 19 improvements.
20 That still was a mixture of concrete action and 21 good intention.
We still did not have specific criteria and 22 mechanisms to compel the licensees to move forward.
Now, we 23 pursued some rulemakings, but in 1992, we published what we 24 called the SDM action plan and we went formally public in 25 the Federal Register with the list of sites that we were ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 l
1
-.m 9
1* -
T1;
' going to pursue, and we also summarized our criteria, 2
. clean-up criteria lwhich we would now call interim criteria 3-because, as we'll get to later, we now have a license 4L termination rule,-but at that' time, we-didn't have that.
So 5-we gave the licensees the target criteria and told them that 6
- we. wanted them to proceed. expeditiously with.
7 decommissioning,-and-that we were going to start with 8
encouraging and relying on voluntary action on the part of 9
the licensees, but if necessary, we were going to take 10-enforcement action to compel the-licensees to clean up.
L
-11 Could I have the next slide, please.
12
[ Slide.)
13 As I said,-there.were 40 sites originally on the 14 list, and:since_then, we have added 20 sites and we removed 15
.20 sites, and as Madame Chairman mentioned, eight were 16 removed in 1997, so there's 39 sites left'.
17 Just to summarize _the types of sites, in general, 18 they're. sites that involve extensive outdcor contamination, 19:
normally uranium and_ thorium, either a soil contamination or 20-large piles'of tailings or that. type of' process material.
~
21 In many_ cases, there are also contaminated 22-buildings, and in some cases,-there are fission products,
=23 such as Cobalt 16 and Strontium 90, but it's primarily a t
24 uranium and thorium problem.
'25 Could I have the next slide, please.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
10 1
(Slide.)
2 Now, let me summarize what we did following 3
specifically on the last briefing.
You asked us to report 4
back to you on the feasibility of a generic e1vironmental 5
impact statement, and the idea behind a GEIS would be that 6
it would reduce the need for individual impact statements by 7
enveloping a bunch of common issues among certain sites and 8
save resources and resolve policy issues in a coordinated 9
manner.
10 We reported back to you in July that at this time, 11 we didn't think that pursuing a GEIS would be 12 cost-effective, that we noted that with the license 13 termination rule, it had its own GEIS, and we thought we 14 should pursue implementation of the license termination rule 15 and deal with the sites in that context, and then we would 16 revisit the issue of a GEIS in two years.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me ask you this:
What 18 information or data would you be anticipating within that 19 two-year period that would change your recommendation not to 20 proceed with an EIS for certain of these sites?
21 MR. HICKEY:
Well, some of the licensees that we 22 thought might require an EIS it may turn out are 3
23 decommissioned under the new rule without an EIS.
They may 24 make it on a clear path and not need an EIS.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
I may come back to that.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
o 11-1-
Go Shead..
2 MR.--HICKEY:
The:second item you asked.us to
- 3?
pursue 1was:a-risk informed approach for the formerly 4'
licensed sites that had been' released and needed to be 5
reviewed e.nd also these former burials that were identified 6
by;the GAO asJan issue.
7 We_provided you with a report in April, and we
-8 described that we had developed screening instruments to 9
screen these types of-sites and assess the need for 10
-remediation, and it would take:into account the degree of 11
-the hazard and it wouldn't just be arbitrary decisions-as to-12 deciding on the need for remediation.
-13 The third item that you asked --
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So what's the status-now given 15-that-we have the license termination rules finalized?-
16-What's:the: status of the preliminary hazards analysis for 17 formerly licensed sites,-particularly those that may have
,c 18
-been in process?
L19 MR. HICKEY:
Well, we think that a lot of those 20 can be closed out using the preliminary hazard analysis 21 because of the grandfathering and phase-in provisions of the-
- 22
-new rule,- but if for-some reason some-of them drag on too 23'
-long, then it may be a matter of looking at.it under both 241 provisions. :But our plan now is to close out as many as we 25 can und.er the current. provisions.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I; Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
12
)
1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And does the preliminary 2
hazards -- it is supplanted by something else in the license 3
termination rule that is equally risk informed?
4 MR. HICKEY:
I think -- I'll ask Mr. Fauver to 5
address that, if I could.
6 MR. FAUVER:
Yes.
One of the problems we were 7
running into is that we had a requirement -- the criteria 8
for buildings was Reg Guide 1.86, and it was rather 9
prescriptive and basically just gave a concentration number.
10 So we needed to somehow come up with a techniqu:.
looking 11 at that in a risk perspective.
12 There may be cases -- we were finding cases where 13 there was very limited contamination, in corners, in cracks, 14 in little spots in these buildings that exceeded the 15 criteria but clearly were not a risk problem.
16 Under the new rule, that kind of assessment is 17 actually mandated to do a dose-based assessment so that with 18 the transition to that, the new rule will basically cover 19 that kind of assessment.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Thank you.
21 MR. HICKEY:
The third item you asked us to look 22 at which we have not previously reported to you was the 23 impact of project manager turnover, and in the last year --
24 we did provide a summary in the most recent SECY paper -- in 25 the last year, we had seven people that either left the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
~(202) 842-0034
13
-1 agency orithere wasia change of some sort, and that affected-
-L eleven-projects.- Three of-the people left the agency and
.3 that affected fouricases.-
- 4
! Of-the. eleven, we felt-that only two of'the cases 5 -
were adversely;affected by the turnover and four of the 6-cases were affected favorably-because it went from somebody j
who was more~-- had a-heavier workload to somebody who had a 7
8 lighter workload, so there was a:better aojustment of 9
workload,tand in five of the cases, we thought it was just a 10 smooth transition with no impact, lL1 -
So overall, I would say that project management 12 turnover was not-a problem-in affecting our cases.
- 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:. This is just for a point of
.14 -
clarity.
In'those four cases which you said were impacted 15 positively, you indicated that the effect on the schedule 16 was positive because.it resulted in an increased pace of 17 - -
staff effort.
What does that mean?
18-MR. HICKEY: -Well, in some cases,-it might mean 19; that the project was bogged-down because the person was too 201
-busy:-- the person.that was on the case was too busy to work
-21 con it, and another-person may have become freed up because a 22 case was completed, so we gave it to that person.
- 23 MR. GREEVES:
Some project managers have multiple
.24 sites and they only spread around so far.
So as we have 25' added new people, we have been able~to give them some relief ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)~842-0034
'\\
f-14 1_
and actually-increase =the pace-on some of these sites is 2
what John is-identifying.
^
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
And then there was a 4-
-question-about the schedule for. finalizing a draft -- there 5
was a-draft branch technical position for screening sites, 6
and maybe-this goes back to this preliminary hazards 7
analysis, and that the -- the statement was that it would be 8
finalized after a number of burials had been evaluated using 9
that branch technical. position, and after public comments 10 were also resolved.
~
.11 Now, what is the current schedule for_ finalizing 12 that?
And again, has that been affected or supplanted by 13 the final license termination rule?
14 MR. HICKEY:
First of all, with respect to the 15 schedule, we're behind schedule.
We did get the.public
-16 comments and we pretty much evaluated the public comments,
.17 but it's going to take us a couple more months to finalize 18 that position.
19 We still have to assess the effect of the new 20 rule.
We still think it's useful-because it's a very 21 conservative screening technique and if you pass that 22 screening technique, we think that you-still will pass --
-23 will-meet the requirement of the new rule, but we still need 24 to evaluate that.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I guess the real question ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 2
84 -b3
15
- 1, has to do with how.does the one play off the other?
I mean, 2
how does the branch technical position for screening sites
~3 that pose a-significant risk to the public play off of the' 4
license termination rule which-wasn't in place whcn you 5
_ started working on this draft?
6 MR. HICKEY:
I'm not sure I have a good answer to
-7 that.
I'think that in some cases, we may need to evaluate i
8 both because_the -- or we may need to modify the branch 9
technical position before we issue it in fina11to take'into 10 account the new re' ' because --
[
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes.
I mean, that's really 12:
what I'm trying to get at.
(13 MR. HICKEY:
Yes.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I mean, why should you be 15-issuing a branch technical position without checking its 16 conformance with the new license termination-rule?
17 POR. GREEVES:
To-take us back to when the branch
- r 18 technical positien was put out, there was not a rule.
19-CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Absolutely.
20 MR. GREEVES:
ItLwas a tool ---
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Absolutely.
22 MR. GREEVES:
-- that we were using to screen 23L sites.
-24.
_ CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Absolutely.
Ad's just like --
25 MR. GREEVES:
Now, there is --
. ANN RILEY-&-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 w
I I
l 16
(
1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-* the preliminary hasards
}
2 analysis.
Now there's a rule.
So I'm really aski2g you 3
what now?
4 (UL GREEVES:
And I think we need to think it 5
through, so can we take that as an item --
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes.
7 MR. GREEVES:
-- to get back to you on?
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Can I follcw up just 10 briefly?
The new rule and the criteria in the new rule 11 compared to the critaria in either the BTP or in this reg 12 guide 1.86 which is more constraining?
Does it depend on 3
13 the naterial, like for the -- primsrily, you said earlier, 14 uranium and thorium is what characterizes these sites.
Is 15 the new rulo more constraining or less constraining?
16 MR. FAUVER:
The preliminary numbers indicate that 17 it may be clightly more constraining for uranium and 18 thorium.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
With the new rule.
'2C MR. FAUVER:
With the new rule, the 25 millirem.
i 21 A number of the other nuclides I think ara going to be 22 favorable, meaning higher concentrations.
23 However, those numbers are only screening values.
24 What we're -- the guidance is being developed in such a way 25 that a licensee can proceed from a screening conservative ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
17 1
analysis into a site-specific dose assessment, and in many 2
_ cases, I think there's a general expectation that a 3
site-specific value may be higher than the current DTP 4
values.
That will require some analysis by the licensees, 5
-but that's what the rule basically implies.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So you're going tc --
7 MR. GREEVES:
I was just -- I think Dave partially 8
answered the point I was trying to make, which is, I think 9.
his first answer was in some cases, the new rule ir more 10 restrictive, as he said, on the screening basis, but now the 11 new rula does allow you to look at things that aren't 12 exemptions anymore.
So it actually gives us tools that we 13 did not have before.
So on that front, I think the new rule 14
-- well, you've heard this before -- is the tool that we 15 needed.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
And all we're trying to 17 get at is where all of these kind of ad hoc tools, 18 instruments and tools, what's going to happen to them and on 19 what scheduled and how do they affect the sites where you 20 had already begun your screening before the issuance of the 21 final rule.
So just come back with that information.
22 MR. FAUVER:
Okay.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
24 MR. HICKEY:
May I have the next slide, please.
25
[ Slide.]
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-3034
18-1 As we-said before, we wanted to discuss with you
-2 our view that we've reached a point where we'should phase-3 out SDMP terminology and phase ouL treatment of the SDMP as 4
a large distinct program and think more in-terms of a
-5 broader decommissioning program.
6 Now, if you look at the SDMP just in terms of 7
progress on the sites,-you're not going to be very impressed 8
because we started out with 40 sites and we did resolve.some 9
of the sites, but ve still have 39 sites due to some of the 10 additions.
-But if you-look at the progress in terms of the 11 improvements that we've made in our regulatory framework, we 12 believe=we have succeeded to a large degree in addressing 13 all the major deficiencies that were identified prior to 14 1990.
15 We have addressed the generic policy issues 16 through rules and guidance.
We're now maintaining the list 17-of the SDMP sites,and addressing those sites in an orderly
'18 manner.
We have management control and the Division-of 19 Waste Management is assigned'the overall responsibility to 20 make sure these sites,are managed, and we now have the 21 license termination rule, which is a crowning achievement, 22 and we think that we can begin to view the decommissioning 23 prograt' in the context of the license termination rule.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Having done that and having 25 said that, which relates t o these three other points that
,e ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 1
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
19 y
11 LI_'ve kind of-stopped you, I-think it's important that you
- I 2 ;;
just_ provide to the Commission a clear,-crisp description of 3:
the' transition, since-you're proposing to eliminate the SDMP 4-
" program and terminology," a clear, crisp description of the 5-transition from the'SDMP to the license termination rule.
6 --
RIt is very important_because it's the kind of 7.
thing that I get asked about on the Hill about what we're 8
doing with these sites, and we have branch technical 9
positions floating around,_ hazards analyses floating around, 10 various documents floating around.
If you could just do 11.
-that, and so broaden what you were going to do vis-a-vis BDP 12
.into just giving us a clear, crisp description of the 13 transition, what gets phased in, that gets phased out, you 14
-know, what will be used and when, and what happens to those 15 sites that are in process, I think that would be helpful.
16 MR. HICKEY:
Okay.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Dicus?
18 COMMISSIONER-DICUS:
Yes.
Following up on her 19 comment, the Chairman's comment, I know, as you pointed out, 20 a great part of the reason-to have the SDMP program was to 21 address the issues that rose in the hearings, and you've-22
! indicated we've addressed or probably resolved the generic 23-
. policy issues, some of these other things, but-I think as 24:
part of this, to ensure that all of these isaues were 25 identified, were resolved from the hearings so.that we are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250_I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 3
20 1
sure that if we are asked by Congress to address thia or if 2
there is another GAO. report, that we have our ducks in a row 3
on this.
4 MR. GREEVES:
That's right.
5 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
I think we do, but to be very 6
clear on that is very useful.
7 MR. GREEVES:
Right.
Okay.
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Just if I might 9
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner.
10 COMMISSIOITER McGAFFIGAN:
It's on the same issue.
11 I think one of the problems we've faced already, we've 12 released a coupie of sites, I believe one in Maryland 13 recently, and the question has come in, I believe, from 14 sister agencies or whatever, how does this site -- you know, 15 we released it under SDMP, but how does the site stack up 16 under the new rule?
I think, until you have these 40 that 17 are grandfathered under the new rule, or 39 I gu'ess it is, 18 sites off the books, you're probably going to live in a dual 19 system.
They voluntarily move to the new rule as they can, 20 but they are not required to under the new rule.
21 MR. GREEVES:
That's the natural transition, that 22 this rule actually gives the licensees some choice.
They 23
'can stick with the old criteria or go to the criteria, and 24 in part, I think the vision we have is over the next several 25 years, that natural transition is going to take place.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 j
~... -.
21 1
'We'll'see how many licensees want to stick with the old~
3
.2i criteria,:-we'll-.see how many go to.the new ones, and how we 3
_ implement that process,-because we're dealing with a new 4
. rule, we're running into'a few' things that take some 5
implementation thoughts.
But-as far as documenting where we 6
are now, we can do that
'7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
The real-question is, have you-8 developed the associated regulatory guidance for the license 9 -.
termination rule?
10 MR. GREEVES:
Have we developed it?
-11.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes.
12 MR. GREEVES:
We got an SRM by February of this 13 year.
In fact, I think it would be part of this briefing.
14 MR. PAPERIELLO:
The point is, this is where we're 15 dependent on the Office of Research who has~the resources in 16
.both FTE and dollars and charged with developing the 17 criteria to implement the decommissioning rule.
18 On-our side, we'll-develop a standard review plan, 19 but the criteria, whether it's levelsiof screening levels or 20-specific computer programs that are used, would be dependent 21 upon.the Office of Research.to develop.
22--
. CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please-speak into the 23 microphone;
- 24 MR.. HICKEY:
At this-point, the only thing I can 25'
-say is that we're working very diligently to meet that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reportets 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
22 l'
February deadline.
We are depending to a large degree for 2 -
technical assistance.in developing this guidance on Sandia 3-Laboratories.
We are'in correspondence with Sandia_almost 4
-daily and pressing upon them the need to do their part in an 5
expedited fashion.
We think -- well, as of this moment, we 6
are on schedule.
We don't anticipate any major technical 7-problems, but-this is a very complex and tough knot.
But we 8-are continuing to press-forward.
9.
NMSS haa assured us_that they are going to be 10 doing their part in terms of making sure that the 11 development'of the reg guide is coordinated and that it 12 satisfies their needs as well.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: - Commissioner.
14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I would like to ask a 15 question with regard to what our realistic expectations 16 should be for February.
It strikes me that the modelling in 17 this area is complex and there are a bunch of models around, 18 and there~might be some benefit in actually applying some of y
19 them oefore=-- you know, maybe put a-reg guide out and then 20 put a final reg guide out once we've actually gotten some 21 experience.
Is that what ue should be expecting, or are you 22 trying to make all these decisions between now and February 23 as to what the right model is and which application and how 24 to use it?
25 MR. PAPERIELLO:
At a screening level, we are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
23 l' -
pretty confident that we will have a good story in February, 12 that'we will._a able to provide useful guidance to 3
licensees.
4.
We will also have in that guide some indication of 5
-how to proceed with site-specific analyses should that be 6
desirable.
However, the specific models which will be 7
tested for site-specific application, that will take some 8'
time af ter the February reg guide is published.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I think this is part of 10 what I had in mind when I said we need a clear, crisp layout 11 of what the transition strategy is and process so that you 12 can kind of: sweep.all of this together.
l 13 Okay.
Thank you.
14 MR. PAPERIELLO:
I would like to make, if I might 15 make one observation?
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Sure.
17 MR. PAPERIELLO:
Fort St. Vrein was probably, in 18 terms of curie content, the largest decommissioning we've 19 ever been involved-in.
It was never un the SDMP because we
=20 had a' licensee with both the resources and the incentive to 21 do the job.
22
' John's staff was the staff that managed this 23 program, and I think when I talk about essentially merging 24 the two, that's what we're really talking about.
The fact 25 is, the methodology --owe are now developing common ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suine 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
t 24 1
methodologies, common survey methods.
It isn't this piece 2
over here and this piece over there.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Thank you.
4 MR. HICKEY:
I believe we're on slide 7 aow.
5 Well, it's clear we'*_e going to have to get back 6
to you with a comprehensive response that addresses this, 7
but I will -- to give you a feel, some of the material we've 8
prepared touches on some of these pointe.
The 9
accomplishments we've made is we do have rules now that 10.
require comprehensive recordkeeping by the licensees, so 11 they have a record of what needs to be decommissioned.
12 We have a timeliness rule which gives us a basis 13 to compel decommissioning in a timely manner, and of course 14 we now have the final license. termination rule.
15 I would also point out, in '96, we promulgated a 16 comprehensive reactor decommissioning rule that lays out the 17 requirements for reactor deconmissioning when they're shut 18 down in an orderly fashion.
19 Some of the areas that are not rulemakings but are 20 also very helpful is when the SDMP came out, we did not have 21 guidance on how to do a proper site survey, and we have now 22 developed that, and that has progressed to the point where 23 it's now a multi-agency effort and the acronym we use is 24 MARSIM.
So we've cooperated with the main agencies on the 25 proper way to do site surveys, and that's helpful for both ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 I
25 1
the licensees and the agencies that are involved in a
2 decottmissior.ing.
3 We have also brought, as we discussed, burials 1
4 into the umbrella and told licensees that those have to be I
5 addressed in a timely manner, and you have correctly pointed 6
out now we have to visit the issue of how the guidance 7
mergers with the rule and make sure we apply the rule 8
properly.
l 9
We also have comprehensive internal guidance and 10 procedures for our reviewers and inspectors who would 11 conduct decommissioning reviews and inspections.
12 With respect to our vision of the future 13 decommissioning program, we still would plan to brief you 14 annually, and the focus would be how the new rule is being 15 implemented, and we would also tell you how the complex 16 decommissioning cases are coming along, including the sites 17 that were originally on tho SDMP sites, 18 Again, we're going to have to give you a 19 comprehensive response on that, but the SDMP would not 20 disappear overnight in any scenario.
So in addition -- we 21 would continue to manag6 the case work.
In addition to the 22 39 sites -.we have the formerly licensed sites and the 23 burials -- we will have other licensees that come in and 24 propose restricted use under the new rule which the SDMP 25 action plan did not specifically provide for.
The new rule ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, W.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034 V
26 1
does provide'for that.- of course, we'll still have the vast l
i 2
majority of the sites that are routinely cleaned up for 3
unrestricted use.
4' We recognize that there will continue to be i
5 special issues that call for Commission consultation and j
6' involvement with EPA and the public.
We find that these 7
types of cases are very resource intensive and it's 8
important to involve the public and consult with the t
9 Commission as appropriate, consult with EPA _as appropriate,
[
10 and so-we will continue to bring those cases to the
{
31 Commission and the public and make_sure that they're l
12 involved.
- 13 Next slide, please.
14
[ Slide.)
15 "We already' started talking about the lacense 16 termination-rule, but let me just briefly go over that.
Dr.
i 17
'Kastanzi described where'we are.
r i
18
[ Slide.)
l 19 If I could go on-to slide 11, the guidance that's
-20 being developed, I would point out_again that it does allow j
?
21 for restricted use, and so that's going to be an important j
- 22 aspect of developing guidance, and then we have other 23 modules of the guidance for surveys for the as low as 24 reasonably _ achievable principles and the dose modeling which 25_
Commissioner McGaffigan correctly pointed out is quite i
i i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
' Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
27 1 -_
complex.
2 There are public workshops being conducted in 3'
connecticn with developing the guidance.
We've alreadv
-4 helped one and I think there will be three more over the 5
next few months.
6 MR. GRET,VES:
Could I interject on this slide?
l 7
This 1s basically a topic you started into a few 8
minutes ago, and this is a big challenge. ;You asked about l
'9 can we meet the February time frame.
l'0-Research has the lead on that responsibility, and 11 we're. working with them.very well on that.
However, I 12 wouldn't want to over-promise you on the dose modelling.
13-issue.
Of these=four items, that's-the one we're going to 14-have the most trouble'with.
Research has asked the Program 15 Office to increase the level of resources that we're --
-16 we're already putting--resources on its it's important to 17 you,. Carl made real clear ~ to me it's important~ to him,: so 18 -
it's important to me, too, and we --
1E CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You mean it wasn't important to 20; you irrespective of that?
21.
MR. GREEVES:
I'm just trying to make the point 22:
that we're actually allocating resources tolthis that we'are 23 pushing off of work items, and it actually, I think, is 24-going _to increase it over time, and even with that, the dose 25-
_modelling is the area that has the biggest challenge.
There ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034'
28 N
1 will be a workshop on the dose modeling.
We learn things 2
from the licensees in that area.
3 So what we have in February will be based on that i
4 level of effort and how far along we can bring it.
5 Candidly, I think we're going to be working on this topic
.6 through time just as the Commissioner mentioned earlier on, j
7 and it will-get better with time, just like our performance 8
assessment in high level waste..
So I just don't want to 9
over-promise what you can expect in that area in_the 10 February time frame.
11 MR. FAUVER:
I'm not sure it was mentioned that it 12 is going to be published as an interim final reg guide, and 13 there is full expectation of development over some period of 14 time to fine-tune the process that is going to be put in the 15 initial reg guide.
16-MR. HICKEY:
And this is the one the licensees are 17 going to be particularly interested in, the dose modeling 18 aspect, so I expect a fair amount of follow-up on that.
19 These workshops actually are a unique opportunity.
20 We're putting -- actually, Research is putting information 21
~ up on the Internet.
We're getting real-time comments.
It's 22 aul iterative process.
I just wanted to take a stop, if I 23 could, and'--
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me just ask a question.
~
25 Did this work not start until after the final rule was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
29 1
promulgated, or you've been working --
a 2
MR. HICKEY:
No.
Some of this work was ongoing 3
even before the final rule.
When you gave us the February 4
time frame, it sort of calibrated, you know, what had to be 5
done in what time frame.
I think we originally asked for a 6
year to complete it and you came back and said February.
So 7
I think Nick maybe can answer that question better than I, 8
but Sandia was working on this issue before the rule came in 9
place.
10 Nick, do you want to help out on it?
11 MR. COSTANZA:
Yes.
When we first started putting 12 together the rulemaking for license termination, one of the 13 key questions related to what should the criteria be was how 14 would one demonstrate that you've met whatever those 15 criteria might be.
16 So from the onset, when we began this enterprise, 17 we were worried about how to have -- how the licensee would 18 demonstrate compliance, and what kind of guidance would we 19
-- are we bringing upon ourselves to provide to the license 20 for the demonstration?
21 So hand in hand with the development of the rule 22 and the models which support the environmental assessment, 23 which supports the rule, was development of what's going on 24-with the reg guide.
Now, the rule has been published, of 25 course, and now what we're-trying to do is clean up the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
l 30 j
i i
loose ends and make sure that we have everything in order 2
and proof tested it so that we will be able to provide j
3 guidance in which we have confidence to licensees so that 4
they would be able to comply with the rule.
1 l
5 But we have been doing this since the inception of 6
the rulemaking, which is some five years ago or something 7
like that.
It was quite some time ago.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
+
9-MR. HICKEY:
Slide-12, please.
l
(
-10 (Slide.)
i 11 The other aspect of the rule as far as the 12 implementation is how would it apply to the SDMP sites, and 13 we -- you kuow, all the I's are-not dotted and T's crossed, 14-but our sense is_that about half of the sites are on a path 15 to being released for unrestricted use, but they would not 16 apply the rule, they would be grandfathered under the new e
17 rule because the licensees already made enough progress to 18 consider-themselves under the SDMP action plan criteria.
We i
19 have some examples here:
RMI, Heritage Minerals and 20 Chemetron, which are uranium-thorium type licensees.
21-We think about half may request restricted-22 release, such as Shieldalloy, Cabot and Dow Bay City, 23 Michigan.
24 Now, obviously the cases that involve restricted 25 release are more difficult and require resources, but even ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
31 C
1 for cases involving unrestricted release, it can get quite 2
= involved depending on the complexity and public interest.
I 3;
would like to walk you through one case to illustrate the 4-challenges that can be presented, if I'could go on to the 5
next slide.
6
[ Slide.)
7 In this case, the Chemetron case in Ohio, it 8
involves a site that is being cleaned up for unrestricted 9
.use, but in many ways, it mirrors the general problems 10 associated with our decommissioning-program'over the last 20 11' years, and it kind of tracks our chronology of our 12 decommissioning program.
13 It was identified as a contaminated site in 1980.
14 There were numerous unsuccessful attempts to remediate it 15-where they.came and told us the site was cleaned up and we 16 went out and found contamination, but we -- our program was 17-weak, so we were not giving the licensee clear guidance as 18-to what it was-we expacted.
19 Well, in 1990, they had some management changes 20
-where they became more serious about.getting the site 21 cleaned up and we became more serious through the SDMP about 22 getting the site cleaned up.
23 So in the '90s, we finally got them, after some 24
. false stcrts, to adequately characterize the site and submit 25 an adequate decommissioning plaa which we approved earlier ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
32 1
this year, and so they are remediating the site and they're 2
on a path to get it cleaned up and released for unrestricted 3
use in '98.
There was substantial public interest from 4
elected officials, the state and local agencies, the Ohio 5
EPA and the public, and we have gone out, you know, made a 6
lot of effort to have public meetings and make sure the 7
public understands what's going on.
8 So we view this as a success story where we have 9
had extensive coordination with the public, but it took a 10 lot of time and resources, and our goal in the future is to 11 make sure that we involve the public in the decommissioning 12 process to maximize as much as possible the public 13 understanding of what we're doing and hopefully acceptance.
14 We can't guarantee 100 percent acceptance in all cases, but 15 at least we c;.1 involve the public and make sure the public 16 has an understanding of what we're doing.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
18 Commissioner McGaffigan?
19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I would like to use this 20 go to back to slide 9.
Is this a site that we would get 21 informed about, the Commission and the public and EPA, when 22 it's -- it's going to be released for unrestricted use, so 23 it doesn't meet the first criteria.
I don't know whether 24 there are unique issues associated with it.
25 CRAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's the criteria.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
33 1
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
So would it have been 2
one that --
3 MR. PAPERIELLO:
- Yes, I hate to say this -- I may 4
be the oldest NRC manager.
I was associated with this site 5
in the 1980s.
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Also, when it is 7
released -- you said uranium and thorium is the prinary --
8 MR. PAPERIELLO:
Uranium, yes.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Will this --
10 are the criteria for unrestricted release under SDMP -- we 11 rentioned earlier that they might be less restrictive than 12 the new rule.
Would it also qualify for unrestricted 13 release under the new rule?
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Under the new rule, yes, 15 MR. PAPERIELLO:
Let me ask the project manager.
16 He has the dose numbers at his fingertips, so --
17 (Laughter.)
18 MR. JOHNSON:
I'm name is Tim Johnson.
I'm the 19 section chief of the Facilities Decommissioning Section.
20 This would be close to meeting the unrestricted use criteria 21 under the new rule.
Our performance -- a performance 22 assessment dose evaluation that we did for the site came out 23 about 28 millirem per year as a dose to an intruder using 24 the RESRAD modeling scenarios.
So it would be close to the 25 new criteria for the unrestricted use.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
(
34 1
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:.And did you make a 2.
determination in the process that this was also as low-as j
i 3
reasonably achievable level, that there was --
1 4
MR. JOHNSON:
Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
6 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
One real quick one to anyone.
1 7
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
He's trying to go sit down.
8 (Laughter.)
i 9
COMMISSIONER DICUS:
He can go sit down.
This is l
10 really to the staff here.
11 1 One of the issues that we face in making some of i
12 the decisions on these sites was referred to as the public 13 outrage factor, which you have alluded to.
For example, 14 take this site where there is on-site burial and we are 15 going to try to release it for unrestricted use, it applies-16
- to this site, but theoretically to sites in the future, 17-Could the public outrage factor come back to change this j
.1,8 decision?
I mean,--when can we say this is final, or can we?
19.
MR. PAPERIELLO:
If I'm correct, this site is an 20 on-site disposal.
4 21 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
That's right.
22 MR. PAPERIELLO:
And the reason why we had all of
~
23-the local officials involved and the Ohio EPA and the Ohio
- 24J Health Department, is that besides depleted uranium, which 25 is -- these were chemical catalysts, there was solid waste, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
.___2_
.a. _,
35 1
okay, so everybody's rules had to be met, and so there was a 2
lot of public interaction on this.
Any time we had a 3
situation like this, you would be well informed of what's 4
going on.
5 But I think we're going to have a lot of public 6
interaction on any site on which there is going to be an in 7
situ disposal or a restricted release.
That's clearly my --
8 what I'm seeing from my exper'iences in tha last couple of r
9 years.
Obviously, when that happens, or when that potential 10 exists, we're going to keep you well informed of what's 11 going on.
12 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
One more?
14 MR. COSTANZA:
Just one more.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Sure.
16 MR. COSTANZA:
The way this chart number 12 is set 17 up, I would say about half should be released for 18 unrestricted use under SDMP criteria presumably, and then 19 about half may request restricted release, and as I 20 understand, that would mean they would have to come under 21 the new rule because the SDMP did not have restricted 22 release.
23 MR. GREEVES:
That's my belief.
24 MR. COSTANZA:
Right.
But it looks a little -- of 25 the half, the about half that are going to be released for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 36 1
untestricted use, if you know know how many would be 2
unrestricted under the new rule --
)
3' MR. GREEVES:
Right.
it sort of looks like they -- if 4
MR. COSTANZA' 5
the old rule is advantageous to you --
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You use that.
7 MR. COSTANZA:
-- you use that.
If the new rule 8
is advantageous, you use that, and that may be inherent.
9 But do we know if any of these sites are five, ten, 15, 20 10 millirems?
11 MR. HICKEY:
Are you talking about the 12 unrestricted group?
13 MR. COSTANZA:
The unrestricted group.
14 MR. HICKEY:
I'm not sure I can answer that.
15 One thing I should point out is it also depends on 16 the model we develop --
17 MR. COSTANZA:
I understand that.
18 MR. HICKEY:
-- to apply the new rule.
It may not 19 be as conservative as the models that we've used, for 20 example, for the Chemetron case, so we may make a finding 21 that it --
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Why would the models change?
23 MR. GREEVES:
Under the action plan, many of the 24 sites used the 30 pica curie per gram criteria.
It's not a 25 dose criteria; it's a concentration criteria.
So we don't ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporteru 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
37 1
have in a number of these cases what the dose, for example a
2 of that particular site was.
They have, under the new rule, 3
the option of using the action plan criteria, one of which 4
is 30 pica curies per gram.
So we do have the number, as 5
juet stated, on Chemetron because Chem went through the EA 6
analysis and did some calculations.
7
-MR. FAUVER:
That wasn't 30; that was I think 8
about 70 pica curies per gram on-average.
9 Is that correct?
-10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Seven-zero? MR. FAUVER:
Seven-zero, the concentration at l
12 Chemetron?
I 13 MR. JOHNSON:
The average I think was 83 pica 14 curies.
15 MR. FAUVER:
So it was above that.
16-A couple of times, it has been mentioned that the 17 licensees have an option under the new rule.
I'm not sure 18 if it's clea' that that's only until August of '98 that they 19 have that option.
20:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I see.
21 MR. HICKEY:
Commissioner, I don't have the 22 estimate of which ones might fall above the 25, 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Why don't-you try to-dig that 24 up.
25 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
-I think we would need that.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
38 e
i 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Because it puts us in a 2-potentially untenable position from a public outrage 3
perspective.
f 4
Did you have another quest!.on?
5 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
It's okay.
That's all right.
6 MR. HICKEf May I have slide 14, please.
7 (Slide.)
8 Now, with respect to the strategic initiative, 9
. strategic assessment and direction-setting issue, number i
10 nine, which is materials decommissioning, you asked us to 11 look at innovative ways to improve the decommissioning-12 process, and one of the focuses would be to demonstrate some 13_
flexibility and simplification in tailoring the process to 14-the hazard of the site, and we are pursuing that, t
i 15 We feel-that we are -- we like to think that we-i 16
.are flexible; however, we don't think we have adequately 17-communicated that and explored the options.
So with respect 18 to decommissioning _ plans, we find that licensees are 19 providing mere detailed decommissioning plans than they 20 need.
i l
21 In some cases, they don't even need to submit a 22 decommissioning plan because they could perform some 23 straightforward decommissioning under their existing license i
24 without specific approval from us.
25 So one of the thingo we're pursuing is improving i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
39 1
both our internal guidance and guidance to the licensees to 2
make it clear and provide them with more clear options to i
3 tailor what they submit to us to the actual hazard at the 4
site.
l 5
Another area that we're looking at-is the-i 6
transition from operation to decommissioning.
In many 7
cases, the licensees are keeping license conditions and j
8 commitments in place that are not needed for decommissioning I
9 because they're not doing anything at the site, and yet they 10 have to maintain their infrastructure to hold to those 11 commitments and we do some inspections of those commitments.
12 So we want to go back and clean up the licenses to they only i
13 keep in place the commitments they need to for 14 decommissioning, and then that will free up their resources 15 and our resources to use more efficiently to point toward 16 decommissioning.
17 We also are streamlining our inspection effort by I
18 looking more at the items that relate to clean-up of the 19 site and making sure the licensee does a good jcb in 120
> cleaning up the site, and that will reduce our need to spend 21 resources doing our own final surveys or using a contractor 22 to do our final surveys.
23 One of the ways that we need to implement that is 24 through a master inspection plan because it requires 25 coordination between our proj act managers and.the inspectors 4
d ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
40 1
to coordinate what inspections need to be done when and what 2
the emphasis will be.
So we'll be reporting back to you 3
next year on the results.of this in connection with the DSI.
4' CHAIRMAN JACI: DON Okay.
5 MR. HICKEY:
Slide 15, please.
6 (Slide.)
7 If I could say a word about resources, we are in a 8
positio,n where the resources, as with many programs, are 9
projected to decline, and this is a dynamic program, it's 10 not a program that's just on automatic pilot.
11 As we have discussed, we have some front-end work 12 to do to implement the new rule and to implement some other 13 improvements, and in addition to that, the case work is 14 still there.
So we have some concern that we need to keep 15 an eye on the backlog and what impact our resource situation 16 might have on not-being able to do reviews in a timely 17-manner where we're on the critical path and the licensee 18 needs to move forward.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I understand that, but I also j
20 believe that your slide 8, your slide 10, and your slide 11 21 hold a lot of the keys -- namely, you need to standardize 22 how you're going to review things, what your inspection 23 procedures are, et-cetera, guidance development to the 24 Taximum extent you can, and the, with that, the= specific reg 25 guide in the areas you've listed to the maximum extent you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 Washingtov, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
O 41 1
can, because there are two aspects.
One is the number of 2
people you throw at it; the ocher is, you know, the 3
processes that you use.
i 4
Carl -- Dr. Paperiello should never have done the 5
business process reengineering, and out of that came, you know, the result of -- that was in a different arena.
It 7
had to do with reviewing license applications, but it shows 8
the value of having things codified in one place, et cetera.
-9 So I urge you on that, even as we hear you, in terms of the 10 resources.
11 MR. HICKEY:
Yes.
And I think some of this 12 front-end work will pay off in the form of having --
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
But you're saying you will be 14 able to get it done?
15 MR. HICKEY:
It will pay off to us and to the 16 licensees because they will know what is expected in a 17 standardized manner.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:.Right.
Exactly.
19 Commissioner?
i 20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Could I ask about sites 21
.that aren't on the decommissioning management plan?
This is 22 the resources for SDMP.
23 MR. HICKEY:
That's right.
24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
We clearly -- I hope 25 we're budgeting-resources for the Maine Yankee, Haddam ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
48 1
Necks, et cetera, that are coming along and are going to --
2 you know, Carl mencioned earlier in terms of curies or 3-whatever, that Fort St. Vrnin was the biggest thing we have 4
-decommissioned.
We have a few others coming along now that 5-presumably have a few curies in them, too.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let's let Carl speak to this.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Yes.
8 MR. PAPERIELLO:. We do, but I'm not sure what the 9
numbers are.
They are not -- I don't think there are as l-
-10 many as 14 in this thing, but I would have to go back and 11 check what the budget is.
They're all in John's -- for the 12 most part -- in John's branch.
13 MR. HICKEY:
If I could juct use round numbers, 14 for reactors, we have about three FTE a year, but keep in 15
-mind that NRR also has a role in reactor decommissioning.
-16 We get the cases when the fuel is removed, bat a lot of 17 decommissioning activity goes on under the new rule before 18 we get_the case, _And we a,lso have I'm going to say_on the 19 order of six to eight FTE for other types of materials cases 20 that are not on the SDMP.
21 The purpose of this slide is not to try to capture 22-all the resources, but just to illustrate that there is a 23 decline in the resources.
24 MR. CALLAN:
Let me juct say something about 25 resources on t11s question of. predicting -- projecting ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 1
e 43 I
reacter decommissioning.
The dilemma we faced, of couree, 2
was in the budget assumptions, we didn't aant to speculate, 3
we didn't want to speculate in a public document what the-4 staff believed to be the number of decommissioning that we 5
would expect, but rather we limited ourselves to those known 6
cases.
So that did necessarily restrict our ability to 7
resource load this.
8 It is a dilemma.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
10 Yes.
11 MR. PAPERIELLO:
Could I add, en that same line, 12 we don't know about the cases we're going to get from the 13 regions also.
We had a recent call -- by the way, all four 14 of the regions are on the line listening; we set up a tie
~
15 line.
We had a call from Region IV, and they went through 16 four cases with us that came in talking about clean-up.
17 They described them, and it ended up that we said, well, L
18 they are all four complicated enough that you have to send 19 them to headquarters, and the way we find out about that is 20 when a licensee out in a region contacts the region and 21
- says, I want to terminate, and the region reviews the file 22 and says, hey, soil contamination, et cetera.
23 So it's just a small example of some of the 24
' unknown resource budgeting actions that are out chere and, 25 you know, Region.IV did the right thing, got on the phone ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005
'(202) 842-0034
44 1
with_us,-but now that's on our plate to try and work off.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
But I_think what we 3
need is just -to keep the sensitivity mecer high coupled with 4
your pushing as hard and_as fast as you can on getting as 5
much consolidation and guidance development as soon-as you 6
can so that_that part is not a burden.
7 Okay.
Commissioner?
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
One small resource 9
issue, and it's treated in the paper and it's mentioned in 10 the SRM.
How many reaources are-going to go toward the 11-
-pilot-program for the non-complicated sites?
I've got-the p
12.
SRM in front of us.
The technically capable, adequately 13 funded licensee's -- licensee site should be minimally 14-contaminated,-non-complex, et cetera.-
15 I'm asking the question, how nuch resource is 16 going in there, and given that we're going.through a 17 budget-cutting drill here'in light of the Congressional-18 action on oer budget,_is this an area we should be looking 19 at-for whether the payoff is worth the cost?
20-CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
If I may rephrase it so you 21 don't strictly put him on the spot, why don't we say that in 22_
looking at how we apportion the. budget cut, we can have you 23' fold that into the considerations as to whethor there is.any 24' opportunity there.
25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
But what_is the resource q
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202).842-0034
45 1
going into it?
2 MR. HICKEY:
I don't have the exact number, but it 3
is included in this 22 in '97.
But I just don't have --
4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
5 MR. HICKEY:
It's a small fraction of the total.
6 It's not 20 percent of the total or anything like that.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So it's not going to cut that 8
much ice.
9 MR. HICKEY:
It's not that big a number.
But I 10 would point out that there's some serendipity.
These 11 workshops we're doing on the guidance process, we're going 12 to. bump into a lot of the licenseen there.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Got your point.
14
[ Slide.)
15 MR. HICKEY:
On the final slide, if I could 16 present our forward view and where we go from here, we do 17 feel that vs have accomplished what we set out to accomplish 18 d n c.evelopir.g the regulatory framework culminating in 19 issuing the license cermination rule.
We do want to nake a 20 transition from focusing en the SDMP to a broader 21 decommissioning program, and you have told us that you want 2N to hear.more from us as to exactly how we would do that.
23 We will continue improvements under the 24 direction setting issue number nine of-the strategic 25 assessment, and we are focusing a lot of effort on ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842 0034
~.
. - -. -. ~ _ - - -. _ - -
t 46 1
developing the guidance for the license termination rule and l
2 we still have the case work challenges to address those --
j l
i 3
those cases have not gone away; 4
So I would believe with the publication of the 5-license termination rule, we should declare at least a
{
6 substantial victory in developing the regulatory framework 7
for carrying out our decommissionir] program.
1 8
-CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
j 9-
-Commissioner Dicus.
10 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Has the consolidation of the 11 radiological laboratories occurred yet?
Can someone tell me a
12 where that is?
13 MR HICKEY:
Yes.
The consolidation has occurred 14 in the sense that the mobile labs have been taken out of
.15 service in Regions II and IV.
The laboratory capabilities 16 have been reduced in-Regions II and IV and lead t-i 17 responsibility has been transferred'to Regions I and III.
18 There is a tendency for Region IV to work with 19 Region III and Region II to work with Region I just for
-20 geographical reasons, but there's no statement that it has 21-to always be that way; it's just whatever is appropriate for i
22 Regions I and III to provide support.
23 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
What kind of resource 24.
savings did we get?
Do you know offhand?
25 MR. HICKEY:. I just don't know that offhand, I'm ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
.s Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
-o-47 o
1 -
sorry.
We could-check on that.
2 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Anything else?
4 Commissioner Diaz?
5-COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
No,'no questions.
6 CHAIRMAN' JACKSON:
Commissioner McGaffigan?
7-Let me hurry up so we'll make it in the hour.
p 8
The-Commission would like to thank the staff for 9
an informative briefing on the status of the SDMP _rogram.
10 It is clear from our discussion today that changes have been 11 and are being made to the program to improve-its overall
' 12 efficiency.
I-13-Now, we-do recognize, as we've discussed,:that.the 14-program is in a transitional state, and that you expect 15-modifications and improvements over the next few years, but 16 obviously we're very interested in the development of -- and 17 -
the merging of the programs ar.d the-application of the new
- 18 rule.
19 You have described a number of successes over the 20 last year that we have been discussing, and they are 4
- 21 significant improvements, and so I compliment you on your 22 diligent efforts.
23 We're going to continue to monitor the program, 24'
'look for this comprehensive but concise statement of 25:
transition and where you are in putting the various ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
'(202) 842-0034 1
48 1
additional foundational pieces together.
2 So without further ado, we're adjourned and it's 3
three o' clock.
4
[Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the meeting was 5
concluded.)
6 7
8
')
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
CERTIFICATE 1
'This is tt. certify that the attached description of a meeting of the U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE-OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON SITE DECOMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN (SDMP) PUBLIC MEETING i
PLACE ~OF MEETING:
Rockville, Maryland DATE OF MEETING:
-Wednesday,-October-29, 1997 was held as herein appears, is s true and accurate record of the meeting, and that thir, is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to l
typewricing by me or under the direction of the court reporting company l
!=
/
, /2,////MM//
Transcriber:
/
y-v Jan del Monte Reporter:
i 9
l
~,;-,~.,,,
_..;.1
.j i
f* **%,,
+
l
+
I i
SITE DECOMMISSIONING J
MANAGEMENT PLAN Division of Waste Management October 29,1997 j
i i
'I l'
1 ;l:!I)!t:
j '!!i!!l ii!it Ii l>I!l, ygo lon i
m 9
re T
o e
N P
W M
lu e
R E
D u
S n
s I
s V
oi t
i R
g u
t 2
a g
n O
n n
E if i
it V
e es mt w
e e
i d
r a
r O
n B
h T
n e
S i
V uo s
P r
u e
o dr g
o o
s i
t t
a n
c w
i k
v n
e e
c e
a c
r r
a r
l i
o i
B P
P L
D F
!!l:{Il{ll llll
,l l,ii!
ii l;
i l1 4\\,
ir l
i i
1, SDMP BACKGROUND t
I e 1988 Financial Assurance Rule I
i
- 1989 Congressional Review l
e 1990 SDMP Established
- 1992 SDMP Action Plan i
I i
3 I
i i
t j
i i
l!l
\\l' N
)799 t
1 s
n S
i i
L U
8 l
(
a T
n d
A g
v n
e i
T d
o a
4 i
ir e
S O
d mm n
d e
e E
o A
R R
T s
s s
s I
e e
e e
S t
t t
t i
i i
i S
S S
S 0
0 1
9 4
2 2
3 o
e lll1lll l
fl l
l l
PREVIOUS SDMP BRIEFING In Response To SRM From Last Commission l
Briefing (October 1996) Staff:
- Provided Report on Feasibility of GEIS j
Provided Report on Risk Infcrmed Regulation l
of Formerly Licensed Sites and Former Burials 1
Evaluated impact of Project Manager Turnover on 1
SDMP Sites
- 11 project manager changes in FY 97 l
i
- 2 cases adversely affected
-l l
- 4 cases affected positively
- 5 cases no impact t
l 5
i
PHASE OUT SDMP TERMINOLOGY
- Generic Policy issues Resolved
- Contaminated Site List Being Maintained
- Organization Established With Responsibility For Decommissioning
- Transition to License Termination Rule 6
a
~,...
.,,,,a
---u.,
.,m g
l POLICY ISSUE RESOLUTION
- Final Rule, " Decommissioning Record keeping and License Termination: Documentation j
Additions"(1993)
- Final Rule, " Timeliness in Decommissioning of j
l Materials Facilities"(1994) l l
e Final Rule, " Radiological Criteria for License Termination"(1997) i f
7 i
POLICY ISSUE RESOLUTION (CONT.)
- Draft NUREG-1575, " Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site investigation Manual"
- IN 96-47," Record Keeping and Decommissioning Notifications for Disposals of Radioactive Waste by Land Burial Under Former 10 CFR 20.304 and 20.302 and Current 20.2002"
- Standard Review Plan, inspection Procedures, NMSS Decommissioning Handbook 8
l FUTURE DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM e Annual Commission Briefing on Materials Decommissioning Program
- Manage Decommissioning Casework
- 39 SDMP sites
- formerly licensed sites and former onsite burials
- restricted use sites
- unrestricted use sites
- Notify Commission, Public, and EPA when:
- site released for restricted use
- unique issues associated with site
- as required by License Termination Rule 9
1
,I:.
. 1l ii!l:i !i! j 1 l,li!fIl1 ii![!
lI
- !lij1 E
L UR s
e N
t t
i n
S O
e mP T
p I
M A
o D
N e
S l
v o
I e
t 0
M D
n 1
R e
o i
E c
t n
a T
a c
i d
lp E
iu p
S G
A N
EC IL
- lllll, llll l
l 1
l1
LICENSE TERMINATION RULE Guidance l
- Regulatory Guide
- Restricted Use and institutional Controls f
t
- Final Status Survey i
- ALARA l
l
- Dose Modeling
- . Public Workshops f
}
t i
[
LICENSE TERMINATION RULE SDMPSITES
- Currently 39 SDMP Sites e About Half Should Be Released For Unrestricted Use
- most " grandfathered" under new rule
- SDMP Action Plan criteria
- examples:
RMI Titanium Heritage Minerals Chemetron
- About Half May Request Restricted Release
- examples:
Shieldalloy-Cambridge Cabot Reading Dow Bay City 12
l CHEMETRON - BERT AVENUE Contamination Discovered in Landfill (1980) i
- Numerous Unsuccessful Remediation Attempts (1980 - 1990)
- Substantive Deficiencies in Characterization i
Reports and Decommissioning Plans (1990 - 1997) 1 i
- Extensive Coordination With Outside Parties
- elected officials t
- State and local agencies
- Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
- public t
- Scheduled for Unrestricted Release - 1998 13 I
t t
l DIRECTION-SEi iING ISSUE NO. 9 Objective: Innovative improvements
- Decommissioning Plans
- establish flexibility and risk-informed approach
- criteria for submittal
- information required in plan l
Transition from Operation to Decommissioning:
License Modification
- Streamline Decommissioning inspections
- reduce inspection of low-risk activities
- master inspection plan final survey program" inspection 14
4
.-_.wa.
a h W as an--em.A m.4 M
m-J-a<he-u.d.= mama 4J,_uit.mBL 1 m u-e44.*4d4.-uq.a,3
.si.e _44 m m. A.h e r 4,s.,.4,3,wa4m,..4s_saA as 4L bha &4m M A*
- e h _h-ea.as4 4 a
,p4
,awa,-w4J44_.u.=m asel.h as.E ep.
Ja.e_a i
e
,e
)
i.
l i
\\
i i
h, Lu O
E 3
O i
m m
m i
5k i
Lu rr a
e
=
N v-v-
l I
I I
b Z
i CD l
g v-v-
v-y 9
9 O
l-O Lu i.
O a
d 4
i 4
)
1!-
l l
\\
FORWARD VIEW
- Sufficient Policy and Rules Now Exist
- Transition From SDMP to Comprehensive Decommissioning Program
- Continue improvements Under Direction-Setting issue No. 9
- Implementation of License Termination Rule Primary Near-Term Focus
- Significant Casework Challenges Remain 16
. _.... ~....