ML20216C865
| ML20216C865 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/13/1995 |
| From: | Clint Jones NRC |
| To: | Matt Thomas NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216C659 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-61FR24669, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-61, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-72 AF17-2-005, AF17-2-5, NUDOCS 9709090155 | |
| Download: ML20216C865 (1) | |
Text
-._-_.-
A F - ) ~7 -- p --
[]Did.
From: Cynthia G. Jones (CGJ)
To:
TW4:HMSl:TW10:TW9:MLTl Date: Friday, January 13, 1995 8:49 am
Subject:
proposed rules - recordkeeping requireme Non-core is anything other than a Priority 1, 2 or 3 licensee (one that is inspected every 1, 2 or 3 years).
1 J
9709090155 970904 PDR PR 20 61FR24669 PDR
nw L
IIL Clean Water Fund of Nbrth Carolina Asheville Office 291/2 Page Ave Ashevi!ie"NC 2fif01} 704 25.10518 Raleigh Office P O Box 1008 Raleigh NC 27602 919-832 7491
~
Cl i
~ ?,WR,0 C
E n 0 Rui.E 1 &. s 4 @'~
i ! January 1995 f
g,
- g g g ; y-j i
'lA Secretary
( 5 % t. 6 6Sh @
Z US Nuclear Regulatory Conunission g
Washington DC 20555-0001 W
w ATTN: Docketing & Service Branch 5.
The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina believes that additional record-keeping requirements are necessary to assure protection of the public health and safety, as discussed in the Commission's proposal noticed 28 December 1994 at 59 FR 66815.
However, the Fund is concerned that the Commission's proposal overlooks the benefits which could result from simple, inexpensive-to-implement requirements enhancing public access to infonnation.
The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina does not approve of the current Commission policy, which appears to allow Commission licensees to retain private control of most infonnation related to the licensed act'ivity, including much infonnation directly relevant to licensing and enforcement decisions.
The Fund notes that enhanced public access to infonnation is an important (though not the only) reason for record-keeping, in part because infonned members of the public can play a significant role in ensuring that regulatory actions are appropriate and timely. Moreover, increasing public access to information can provide additional political pressures tending to protect the infomiation from loss.
The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina has noted with approval recent actions by the Energy Department, which would regard contractor-produced infonnation as public documents. The Fund urges the Commission to consider enhanced public access to infonnation as part of a coherent policy to protect important documentary infonnation from loss.
Carl Rupert, Ph.D., Raleigh Research Director The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina PO Box 1008 Raleigh NC 27602
-..,_..-...-.,m..-.,..
[f l
9
f)F i P d-
'? D
..., w..,,,,,, so u s. i...
i.., s., o,w,,,.a :, -
" I: r.1 3: 50 o LL March 28, 1995 gf Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch Serial No. GL 94-090 Division of Freedom of Information and Publication Services NL&i'/EJL Mail Stop T-6DS9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I0%
Washington, DC 20555-0001
$9%Q${4 l2~l 2-8 I %
Dear Sir:
10 CFR PARTS 20,30,40,61,70, and 72 TERMINATION OR TRANSFER OF LICENSED ACTIVITIES: RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED RULE FEDERAL REGISTER / Vol. 59, No. 248 / DECEMBER 28,1994 / p. 66814 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations pertaining to the disposition of certain records when a licenses terminates licensed activities or licensed activities are transferred to another licensee. The proposed rule would require a licensee to transfer records pertaining to decommission ng the facility, and records pertaining to public dose and waste disposal, to the new licensee if licensed activities will continue at the same location, or require the licenses to forward records pedaining to public dose and waste disposal to the N9C before the license is terminated.
We have reviewed the proposed rule. The new requirements appear to be reasonable.
However, we do have one comment. 10 CFR 72.30(d) addresses recordkeeping requirements for decommissioning for independent spent fuel storage installations. The NRC has proposed changes to this paragraph to address the transfer of licensed activities.10 CFR 50.75 (g) contains the same type of recordkeeping requirements for decommissioning for production and utilization facilities. However, no changes have been proposed for this paragraph. This appears to be inconsistent and may have been inadvertent.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rule.
Very truly yours, M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Programs
.3544/co # j, x y M $ 5' ' O V I
d (W na g'3 PDR DOCKET NLNBER e A
PROPOSED RULE IR e A A Secretary (ppR.M%D 00Cypr0 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission msF cl.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch 95 JAN 18 PS :05 RE: TERMINATION OR TRANSFER OF LICENSED ACTIVITIES:
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF Of *
-t
GENERAL COMMENT
S:
This letter is in response to the NRC Proposed Rule regarding recordkeeping,10 CFR 20, 30, 40, 61, 70, and 72.
Colorado believes that the NRC has not adequately considered viable alternatives, that the cost-effectiveness has not been adequately determined, and the proposed level of compa+ wility is not inappropriate under either existing or proposed Commission Policy.
While there is merit in requiring the transfer of certain records for particular types of licenses, the proposed rule is. overly broad and the impacts have not been properly evaluated. Therefore, the proposed rules should be modified and reissued for comment.
Colorado's specific comments are as follows:
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
1.
The NRC Has Not Demonstrated The Need For This Rule NRC states in the Background information that the need for these regulations was the result of one incident where the NRC could not determine the amount of material released into a sewer system.
However, the NRC has not demonstrated that the proposed regulations, and their associated costs to licensees, the NRC and the Agreement States (See below), would elucidate the analysis of the environmental impact from the site.
Prior to being able to evaluate the cost-benefit of the proposal, NRC must first provide data that permits evaluation of actual impact of these regulations.
While NRC has identified one case where this information may have been useful, it has not identified the frequency with which similar situations will arise.
Further, while there may be utility for having this type of information for licenses that have a reasonable potential for chusing contamination and that may need to be remediated by a governmental agency, no need has been demonstrated for requiring the same information from licensees that' possess only sealed sources,
or materials with short half lives.
2.
NRC Has Not Demonstrated The Expected Benefit Of The Rule.
In addition to knowing how often the required records will be consulted, their utility to the decision process must also be demonstrated. The Objective of the Regulatory Analysis states these records "...will provide the NRC with the information needed to assess possible risks associated with licensed activities once a licensee has terminated its license."
This assumption is generally false.
For example, even if sewer release records were available, would not an independent evaluation of the environment also be required; and if remediation/ decontamination were required, would it not be on the basis of actual
-95+h+% d Qp.
3.yd f s m y 9
~.
survey data rather than on sewer release records?
If actions are then based s
on survey data, maintenance of sewer records, while nice information, do not contribute to the decision process. If they are not used in decisions, the costs for providing them to the NRC and Agreement States is not justified.
NRC has failed to discuss the utility of records that are based on gross calculations.
Most facilities evaluate environmental releases based on assumptions that are both gross and conservative. It would not be appropriate to base any actions, other than routine compliance, on calculati as that are not believed to be accurate. In the evaluation of the proposed regu' 4tions, NRC must estimate for those licensees that are required to submit records, what percentage would have accurate data that could be use.
For those facilities that perform monitoring to estimate environmental releases, the results are often below minimum detection limits. As such, results can only be used to estimate maximum, rather than actual, releases and exposures. Their utility is limited. Again, the NRC has failed to demonstrate why records of limited use are needed.
The Regulatory Analysis states that licensees possessing only sealed sources or materials with short half lives will not have many records. However, the NRC has not provided data, or even presented a plausible argument, as to why records for these type of licenses should be included in the proposed rule.
Experience with remedial activities of the federal government would indicate that many short-lived isotopes will decay to background before any federal agency can begin a remediation.
3.
A Division 2 Level Of Compatibility Has No Basis.
The Commission has proposed a Division 2 level of compatibility for the Agreement States. The Federal Register notice states these rules are "...needed to provide sufficient information to a new licensee and to evaluate offsite consequences from previous licensee activities and to decommission the site effectively." As stated above, the utility of these records is questionable.
Even were they to provide sufficient information to make a decision, actual survey results, by the NRC, an Agreement State or a new licensee, could be substituted. Therefore, since the identified records are neither reliable nor actually needed, an Agreement State program can be adequate without the adoption of similar regulations.
Further, the Commission har failed to demonstrate a national need for these records.
Hence there adoption can not be a matter of compatibility under the Commission's proposed compatibility criteria.
4.
NRC Has Failed To Identify Regulatory Alternatives That Would Be As Effective As The Proposed Rule While Place Less Burden On Licensees, The NRC And Agreement States.
A valid discussion can not occur unless accurate information regarding the effectiveness of the alternatives is available. As noted in item 2 above, any benefit from the proposed rule is questionable. However, putting this issue aside, conspicuously absent are viable, regulatory alternatives that could provide comparable information at less cost.
l
___J
l The NRC has chosen to put forth three alternatives that do not involve regulatory changes and only one alternative that involves changes to the regulations. The analysis then concludes that the regulations must be adopted because modifying licenses is too expensive, and the non-regulatory actions can not be enforced.
Failure to even consider alternative regulations that may be as effective (if, in fact, the proposal would be effective) and less burdensome should be sufficient reason to withdraw the proposed rule.
Specific regulatory alternatives that should be considered include, but are not limited to:
a.
Perform separate evaluations for the utility of requiring records for public dose and for waste disposal, and making independent judgements, b.
Consideration of limiting the scope of the rules to address only those facilities that possess unsealed sources with loag half lives.
The regelatory analysis states that licensees possessing only materials with a short half live or sealed sources will not have m:ny records. However no justification has been provide as to why the proposed regulations need to apply to these licensees, c.
Consideration of all records being provided to the NRC, rather than requiring Agreement States to maintain the records.
d.
Elimination of transferring 10 CFR 20.2005 type records (disposal of specific wastes, s1.85 kBq-gm-1 of H-3 or C-14 in scintillation fluids or animal tissue).
If the potential environmental impacts from these disposals are so important that records of their disposal must be kept by the NRC and Agreement States in perpetuity, why is this type of disposal permitted in the first place?
5.
The Regulatory Analysis Is Flawed.
The Regulatory Analysis is flawed for several reasons. Because the analysis is flawed, the proposed rule should be-withdrawn.
Problems identified with = the analysis are as follows:
a.
Because the effectiveness of the proposed rule has not been demonstrated, either by data or by rational arguments, the cost of this or any other, similar proposal can not be compared to the implied benefit.
At a potential impact of $1,120,000 per year to our licensees (see below), this type of analysis must be conducted.
b.
The analysis is flawed is because potentially less costly, effective regulatory alternatives have not considered.
c.
Other costs associated with the proposed rule have not been considered.
Costs associated with inspections must be included.
While the NRC may be able to absorb-these costs-in "non-core portions of the inspection program", Agreement States do not have this luxury.
(In reality, NRC licensees will still pay for these
inspections rather than something else; but the cost to NRC licensees should still be included in the analysis.)
The real ANNUAL costs of the proposal should be calculated as follows:
AGREEMENT TOTAL STATES NRC COST RECORDKEEPING COSTS (from the FR notice)
Licensees
$200,250
$100,800
$ 301,050 NRC & AS 305,242 154,636 760,938 INSPECTION COSTS 240,000 120,000 360,000 TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$745,502
$375,436 $1,120,938 The above assumes 30% of all licenses are inspected each year; review of record retention will take 0.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> / inspection; and the hourly cost per inspector (including fees and general funds for states) is $100. Of course, because states and the NRC charge fees, licensees will bear these costs.
Another item not considered in the analysis is whether or not states can add the necessary FTE to index, record, store and inspect as envisioned in the proposed rules.
6.
The Transfer Requirements Proposed In 30.35(g) Are Appropriate.
The proposed requirement for licensees requiring financial assurance who transfer their license to a new license is appropriate.
However, for the 46 affected licensees per year, this requirement might be handled as a licensing issue, or as a new, limited regulatory proposal, rather than the existing proposal.
7.
The Transfer Requirements Proposed In Part 61 Are Appropriate.
As above, we feel that this requirement is appropriate, but consideration could be given to addressing the issue as a licensing matter, or in a now, limited regulatory proposal.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed regulations are generally flawed, incomplete and misleading.
There is a dearth of information documenting the anticipated effectiveness of the rule.
While some of the proposed requirements have merit, the rest should be withdrawn until the documented benefit can be established.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please don not hesitate to contact me at (303) 692-3030.
l l
1 Robert M. Quillin, Director Radiation Control Division colorado DEPT OF PUBLIC MEALTIE &
ENVIRO 90(ENT 4300 CHERRY CREEK DR. 8.
cf: Richard Bangart Agreement States l
(R V l 3 - n
'PDR-DOCKET NUMBERnn 00rKErEn
\\"
PROPOSED RULd rn ao se,am Uwsc C 5ve.dg A March 15, 1995 95 MR 20 P2 :57 l
Off 1 1 1 ', y y 00 Chi '
COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INO,.m("0CRE")
ON PROPOSED RULE, " TERMINATION OR TRANSFER OF LICENSED 'ACTIVI-TIES:
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS," 59 FED. REG. 66814 (DECEMBER 28, 1994)
OCRE supports this proposed rule.
It is absolutely necessary to ensure that information needed for the decommissioning of licensed sites is available and is not loet or discarded when licenses are transferred or terminated.
It is especially important that the records concerning low-level radioactive waste disposal be transferred-to-the-entity'responsi-ble for-long-term, care of the-facility..
In the Midwest
- Compact, amendments to the compac t have been approved which would ensure that generators retain liability.
It is essential to retain traceability of the waste packages to the responsible generator for the duration of the ha:ardous life of the waste.
This pro-posed rule would ensure that this capability is maintained.
This proposed rule is essential for the protection of the public health and safety and should be adopted without delay.
Respectfully submitted,
't e b
Susan L. Hiatt Director, OCRE 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060-2406 (216) 255-3158
$ N
- Y ),e Q..,/ Q.; f./
I;
i
.M* SF n-1 s.ps,s..
3 Toe STATEOFILLINOIS goes,,,
DEPARTMENTOF NUCLEAR SAFETY a
103h'EIC%RK dNVE SPRINCFHILDjlLLINOISf62704
'W AT -6 P P Jim Edgar
. 21 f 5-99iXj,A[
Thonus Wm Et iger Governor 217-7g2-6]33 {TDD)
Directo g.
.gw March 28, 1995 DOCKET NUMBER w
PROPOSED RULEhcofeo 4,AL Secretary of the Commission GtFR.-bb1W)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch Re:
59 FR 66814-66818, 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 61, 70 and 72.
Proposed Rule, " Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities:
Recordkeeping Requirements."
Gentlemen:
The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Department) hereby submits its comments on the referenced proposed ruleriaking.
The intent of the rule is to require licensees terminating their license and transferring their activities or license to another entity to provide certain records to the new facility owners or operators. Although many ownership transfers include an evaluation of potential liabilities, it may be beneficial to identify the records that may be of interest to NRC after transfer of ownership.
The proposed rule also indicates that if there is no subsequent owner identified, the records identified in the rule must be transferred to the appropriate NRC regional office.
NRC is proposing that this rule be assigned Division 2 level of compatibility to allow Agreement States "the flexibility to adopt similar or more stringent requirements."
The rule specifies that for facilities meeting the financial surety requirements of 10 CFR 30.35(a), decommissioning records required by 10 CFR 30.35(g) must be transferred to the new owners or to the NRC.
In addition, for all. licensees, records of doses to individual members of the public requirsd by 10 CFR 20.2107 and records of waste disposal required by 10 CFR 20.2138 must be forwarded to new owners or the NRC._ There is no exemption for records'of disposal of materials with relatively tort half-lives' d nog exemption for records indicating no releases, or dols 5 to memoers of bfh public in excess af the regulations. This could result in a large volume of records being transferred, especially for facilities that have'been in existence for many years.
~u.;,-
Page 2 The Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in the Federal Register notice indicates that the public (emphasis added) reporting burden is estimated to average 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per response, yet there is no-estimate of burden for Agreement States that would be required t'o~ collect,' store and archive these. records.
Since-the potential resource implications for Agreement States have not been, considered,'the compatibility level should be changed from Division 2 to Division 3.l As indicated in the Federal Register, since our coments on the proposed rule address the potential information collection burden to Agreement States, a copy of this letter is being forwarded to the Information and Records Management Branch and the desk officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Thank you for considering our coments.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me or Kathy Allen at (217) 785-9947.
Sincerely, ibw 0
- Steven C. Collins, Chief Division of Radioactive Materials cc:
Jim Lynch, State Agreements Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard Bangart Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Information and Recoros Management Branch (T-6F33)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C.
20503 l
J
%stilkoonensailbrukteo<o
(
OPM-}
t Jcot. L7est Yn):nts.t.* V "*
- DOCe ~! u USE
.. -.., 7D Pc W FP 19 L :14
, 21 T.1 3: 50 orFiU (a T * = l W - h
--""3 Mm.
March 28, 1995 DOCXi. i)?
'E q R, u, J.,
Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch Serial No. GL 94-090 Division of Freedom of Information and Publication Services NL&P/EJL Mail Stop T-6DS9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NUMBER Washington, DC 20555-0001 PROPOSED BULE ao+ AIL URf9tJMi$
Dear Sir:
~ 10 CFR PARTS 20,30,40,61,70, and 72 TERM;MATION OR TRANSFER OF LICENSED ACTIVITIES: RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED RULE FEDERAL REGISTER / Vol. 59, No. 248 / DECEMBER 28,1994 / p. 66814 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations pertaining to the disposition of certain records when a licensee terminates licensed activities or licensed activities are transferred to another licensee. The >roposed rule would require a licensee to transfer records pertaining to decommission ng the facility and recorde pertaining to public dose and waste disposal, to the new licensee !f licensed activities will continue at the same location, or require the licensee to forward records pertaining to public dose and waste oisposal to the NRC before the license is terminated.
We have reviewed the proposed rule. The new requirements appear to be reasonable.
However, we do have one comment. 10 CFR 72.30(d) addresses recordkeeping, requirements for decommissioning for independent spent fuel storage installations. The NRC has proposed changes to this paragraph to address the transfer of licensed activities.-- 10 CFR 50.75_ (g) contains the same type of recordkeeping requirements for decommissioning for production and utilization facilities. - However, no changes have been proposed for this paragraph. This appears to be inconsistent and may have been inacherter,t.r We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rule.
- Very truly yours, f
^
- M. L. Bowling, Manager =
Nuclear Licensing & Programs
./
4 ~s,n _~iv >
W-s4yi.9<3 fay
f v.
gs
<q (k
)
[
i 1
STATE Of WA ilNGTON I1 ^ c1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH E N U PDM DIVl;lON OF RADIATION PROTkCTION AirdustrialCenter, Oldg. 3
- P.O. Um 4rB27
- Ohmpia, Washin in 98104 ?B27 April 12,1995 Secretary
--h_ [
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(.f el F 46fN Washington, D C, 20555-0001 Attention: Docketing and Services 13 ranch
Dear Secretary:
This letter is in response to the proposed Rule regarding Recordkeeping requirements for terminated or transferred licensee activities While we understand that the comment period has officially closed we are none-the-less compelled to submit the following comments.
Our overall impression can be summarized as fbliows: This rulemaking can be viewed as " punishing everyone for the sins of a few" We have reviewed the state of Colorado's specific comments on this rulemaking (provided to us in dra8) which point out that the required records to be transferred are oflimited use for actual decommissioning of a facility, that short lived material and sealed sources should be excluded from the rule, that certain exempted waste disposals should be excluded, and the real annual cost of the proposal is significantly greater than documented in the analysis to the proposed rulemaking.
We agree with the state of Colorado that 1) the NRC has not demonstrated the need for this rule,2) the NRC has not demonstrated the expected benefit of the mie, 3) the proposed level of compatibility is not reasonable,4) the discussion of regulatory alternatives is inadequate, and 5) the regulatory analysis is generally flawed. In our opinion the proposed rule should be sent back for extensive reworking it would be far better and cheaper to punish the guilty rather than the innocent.
Conceptually, we agree that it is a good idea to have some knowledge of the disposal practices of e licensee aside from their records. However, a better idea for gaining this knowledge would be to have frequent routine inspecions in which the NRC or Agreement,Statt hispector documents disposal methods and assesses compliance with quantity limitations. In the rare event that a licensee should be confronted with a lack of records upon decommissioning of the facility the NRC or Agreement State license files would provide reasonable direction as to where to look for contamination. Since an effective decontamination and decommissioning of a facility relies heavily upon actual samples it-0 0AM%s cy, w,yjgayy
.4 l x ', ;
Page Two.
Secretary - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
April 12,1995 is apparent that the type of records required to be transferred in this proposed rulemaking would do little more than provide a backup to the inspector's documentation of waste disposal methods.
We are also concerned that the analysis of the proposed mle anderestimates the associated 'costi, especially those associated with regulatory. agency acceptance.and storage-of a potentially large.
volume +of4 records, transferred,to-the radiation'rontrol program. We would appreciate your consideration of these comments in the proposed rulemaking.
Sincerely,
.qh% Terry C. razee, Sd'(pervisor K
Radioa ve Materials Section TCF:amw CC: Richard L Bangan, Director - Oflice of State Programs /NRC
. _ _ _ _ _. _ -,, - - _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _