ML20217E001
| ML20217E001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000784 |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1998 |
| From: | Decker T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Bursley J UCAR CARBON CO., INC. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804270159 | |
| Download: ML20217E001 (21) | |
Text
l . 1
. . *f c o
( April 20, 1998 i UCAR Carbon Co.. Inc.
l ATTN: Juanita M. Bursley i 12900 Snow Road Parma. OH 44130
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RELEASE CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING OF UCAR-LAWRENCEBURG
Dear Ms. Bursley:
l This refers to the January 19. 1998. meeting UCAR Carbon Company. Inc. (UCAR) hosted at its facility (the formerly licensed Union Carbide plant) in Lawrenceburg. Tennessee. Attending the meeting were representatives of UCAR.
the State of Tennessee (TDEC Division of Radiological Health). Nuclear Fuel Services and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. During the meeting. UCAR discussed the status of decommissioning initiatives and criteria for site ,
decommissioning. In developing a decommissioning plan based on site characterization conclusions. UCAR proposed release criteria referenced in ,
Subpart E of Part 20 specifically.10 CFR 20.1401(c) which UCAR quoted as follows:
After a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated. .the Commission will require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it determines that. . residual radioactivity remaining at the site could result in significant threat to public health and safety. 10 CFR 20.1401(c).
UCAR contended, in light of the above quoted standard. that the public health and safety would be protected if the dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20. Subpart E.
" Radiological Criteria for License Termination." i.e. 100 millirem per year.
were applied. After reviewing the applicable regulations. I telephoned you to discuss this issue and to advise that the 100 millirem per year criterion was not accept _ble. I also noted that the NRC criteria UCAR quoted during the meeting omitted two relevant sections. The standard that was quoted. with the omitted sections included, provides the following:
After a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated in accordance with the criteria in this Subpart, the Commission will require additional cleanup only if. based on new information.
it determines that the criteria of this Subpart were not met and residual radioactivity at the site could result in significant threat to public health and safety. 10 CFR 20.1401(c).
[ emphasis added]
UCAR requested the NRC to state its position regarding UCAR's proposal to l apply Subpart E dose limits (100 millirem per year) in the UCAR I
decommissioning plan in writing.
\.
l 9804270159 980420 PDR ADOCK 07000784 C PDR ftc7
. .: ? . ,
UCAR Carbon Company. Inc. 2 Because the UCAR site was not decommissioned in the first instance in accordance with the new regulations, i.e. 10 CFR Part 20. Subpart E, it is inappropriate to apply the part of the regulations UCAR quoted as release criteria for the UCAR site. UCAR may apply the 25 millirem per year standard for unconditional release as provided in the new regulations, or the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) criteria for formally licensed sites as also provided in the regulations. Finally. UCAR may decommission the site for restricted use in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1403. I have attached a copy of the Federal Register Notice on the Final Rule for Radiological Criteria for License Termination. You should review the rule carefully in order to familiarize yourself with the alternate release criteria.
If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, do not hesitate to contact me at (404) 562-4721.
Sincerely. l original signed by J. Hensonfor:
Thomas R. Decker. Chief Materials Licensing / Inspection Branch 1 Division of Nuclear Material Safety Docket Nos. 070-00784 (Terminated) 040-07044 (Terminated)
License Nos. SNM-00724 (Terminated)
SMB-00720 (Terminated)
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice 62FR39058 cc w/ encl:
Mr. Dean Erwin. Site Manager UCAR Carbon Co. Inc.
P.O. Box 500 Lawrenceburg. TN 38464 Mr. Mike Mobley. Director Tennessee Dept. of Environment and Conservation Divsion of Radiological Health L&C Annex. Third Floor ,
401 Church St. '
Nashville. TN 37243-1532 Ms. Marie Moore Nuclear Fuel Services. Inc.
1205 Banner Hill Rd.
t Erwin. TN 37650 Distribution w/ encl: (see page 3)
. ,1 r .
UCAR Carbon Company. Inc. 3 Distribution w/ enc 1:
PUBLIC l
l i
7 0FFICE RII:W Ril:0RA SIGNATURE (f/ IMF NMIE OPa#dr CEvwnLfg/
DATE 4/ '/O /96 4/ 2 6 /96 4/ /96 4/ /96 4/ /96 4/ /96 4/ /96 COPY? MEST 10 0 YES (11 tid YES 10 0 YES 11 0 YES 10 0 YES 11 0 YES 10 0 0FF] h / RECORD COPY DOC 18ENT IUWIE: G:\DisIS\DECWWI\UCARCRIT.LTR V 0 V.
I Monday July 21,1997 Part ll Nuclear Regulatory '
Commission 10 CFR Part 20, et al
, Radiological Criteria for License Termination; Final Rule Radiological Criteria for License Termination: Uranium Recovery Facilities Proposed Rule l
l l
i
{
3905
a 39058 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No.139 / Monday. July 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations - -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY 4. Average member of the critical group. XII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement COMMISSIOf4 B. Criteria for restricted use (proposed rul Fairness Act 55 20.1402(d) and 20.1405).
- 1. Introduction 10 CFR Parts 20,30,40,50,51,70 and I. Proposed rule content.
y 2. Comments on acceptability of restricted The Nuclear Regulatory Commission use for decommissioned sites- is amending its regulations regarc'ing RIN 3150-.AD65 3. Response. decommissioning of licensed facilities
- 4. Summary of rule revisions on restricted to provide specific radiological criteria Radiological Criten,a for License use.
for the decommissioning oflands and Termination C. Al rnate criteria for license AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 1. Codifying provisions for certain facilitie ensure that decommissioning will be Commission. that the proposed rule suggested carried out without undue impact on ACTION: Final rule. exempting. public health and safety and the
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory pmPosed in 5 20.1401(a). These criteria apply to the Commission (NRC) is amending its 3. Other exemptions. decommissioning of licensed facilities D. Groundwater protection criteria and facilities subject to the NRC's regulations regarding decommissioning leS2 4 Pose jurisdiction. The Commission will apply of licensed facilities to provide specifi g, opo,ed e on nt radiological criteria for the 2. Use of Environmental Protection Agency these criteria in determining the decommissioning of lands and drinking water standards in NRC's adequacy of remediation of residual structures. The final rule is intended to regulation, radioactivity resulting from the provide a clear and consistent E. Public participation (proposed rule possession or use of source, byproduct, regulatory basis for determining the 55 20.1406 and 20.1407). and special nuclear material. The extent to which lands and structures can 1. Proposed rule content. criteria apply to decommissioning of
- 2. Cenuat requirements on nouficauon nuclear facilities that operate through be considered to be decommissioned.
'"d 5 ' n f comments (proposed their normal lifetime and to those that The final rule will result in more n i,5 .14 efficient and consistent licensing 3. Additional requir'ements on public ma be shut down prematurely, actions related to the numerous and pardelpation (including those for he intent of this rulemaking is to complex site decommissioning activities restricted use. for alternate criteria and provide a clear and consistent anticipated in the future. for use of site. specific advisory boards regulatory basis for determining the EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation (proposed rule 5 20.1406(b)). extent to which lands and structures becomes effective on August 20.1997. 4. SP ecific questions on functioning of site. must be remediated before specific advisory boards. decommissioning of a site can be However, licensees may defer rule F. Other procedural and technical issues. considered complete and the license implementation until August 20.1998. 1. State and NRC compatibility. terminated. The Commission believes FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 2. Grandfathering sites with previously that inclusion of criteria in the Cheryl A. Trottier. Office of Nuclear approved plans (proposed rute regulations will result in more efficient Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear 5 20.1401(b)).
Regulatory Commission. Washington, 3. Finality of decommissioning and future and consistent licensing actions related site reopening (proposed rule to the numerous and frequently DC 20555-0001. telephone: (301) 415-6232. e-mail CAT!@nrc. gov: Frank 5 20.140 Mc)h complex site remediation activities
( unimizau n f comamtnadon anticipated in the future. The Cardile. Office of Nuclear Regulatory (proposed rule 55 20.1401(d) and Commission has reassessed residual Research U.S. Nuclear Regulat 'Y 20.1408h Commission.. Washington. DC 20555-contamination levels contained in
- 5. Provisions for readily removable existing guidance based on changes in 0001, telephone: (301) 415-6185; e mail residual radioacuvity. basic radiation protection standards.
FPC@nrc. gov; Dr. Carl Feldman. Office 6. Separate standard for radon.
- 7. Calculauon of total effective dose Improvements in remediation and of Nuclear Regulatory Research. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, equivalent over 1000 years to radiation detection technologies.
Washington. DC 20555-0001 tele' phone: demonstrate compliance with dose decommissioning experience. public f (301) 415-6194 e mail CXF@nrc. gov; or standard. comments received on rule drafts and C. Other comments, public comments presented at Christine M. Daily. Office of Nuclear 1. Definitions (proposed rule 520.1003). workshops held as part of the rulemaking effort and public comments e C n ssior a ington. fgfE"
- tory guidance.
DC 20555-0001. telephone: (301) 415- f Consistency with hRC'sTtimeliness 4
, xi i
" rule. $1 site PO5 RC s eviOus y pl 1ed 6026. e-mail CXD@nrc. gov. 5. Comments from power reactor SUPPLEMENT ARY INFORM ATloN t decommissionlng rulemaking.
release criteria for decommissioning on I. Introducuon 6. Mixed waste. hazardous waste. and a site specific basis using existing II. Background naturally occurring and accelerator- guidance. Although site specific 111. Overview of Public Comments produced radioactive material. situations will still occur. the IV. Summary of Public Comments. Responses 7. Recycle. Commission believes that codifying to Comments, and Changes From 8. The rulemaking process. radiological criteria for Proposed Rule V. Agreement State Compatibility decommissioning in the regulations will A. Overall license termination approach VI. Relationship Between the Generic allow the NRC to more effectively carry and criteria for unrestricted use Environmental !mpact Statement and out its function of protecting public (proposed rule 55 20.1402 and 20.1404). Site-Specific Decommissioning Actions
- 1. Proposed rule content. VII. Final Generic Environmental Impact health and the environment at
- 2. Criteria for unrestricted use, includin Statement: Availability decommissioned sites by providing for total effective dose equivalent as low as VI!!. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement more efficient use of NRC and licensee reasonably achievable. and IX. Regulatory Analysis resources consistent application across decommissioning objective. X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification all types oflicenses, and a predictable
- 3. General comments on the dose criterion. XI. Backfit Analysis basis for decommissioning planning.
J
4 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39059
- 11. Background the following major subject areas and Specific requirements for use of each On August 22.1994 (59 FR 43200), sections of the proposed rule and are of these two basic methods were the NRC published a proposed rule for presented in the following subsections: presented in the proposed rule. The comment in the Federal Register to (a) Overall license termination preamble to the proposed rule also amend 10 CFR part 20 of its regulations approach (unrestricted use. restricted indicated that there may be certain
" Standards for Protection Against use, exemptions, and alternate criteria). licensees that would seek exemptions Radiation" to include radiological and specific issues on criteria for from the decommissioning criteria of criteria for !! cense termination. The unrestricted use (including total the proposed rule, although it did not l public comment period closed on effective dose equivalent (TEDE), as low codify this exemption path.
i january 20.1995. Comments received as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Section IV.A.2 reviews in detail the on the proposed rule were summarized bjective of decommissioning, average development of unrestricted use criteria; in NUREG/CR-6353. A workshop was member of critical group): and. In doing so it also indicates, in (b) Specific issues on criteria for general. how the overall approach for held on December 6-8.1994 to solicit additional comments related to site- restricted use (bases for using restricted license termination has been specific advisory boards as described in use, reliance on institutional controls. I reexamined to consider public
. the prop 0 sed rule. Comments received mSv (1 0 mrem) TEDE cap. engineered comments. Specific issues and l during that workshop were summarized barriers, financial assurance), requirements regarding other areas.
In NUREC/CR 6307 i. A workshop was (c) Specific issues on exemptions and specifically restricted use, exemptions.
l alternate criteria for license termination and alternate criteria, are discussed in
- also held on September 29.1995, t (facilities with large volumes of low more detail in Sections IV.B and IV.C of i specifically discuss methods for Implementing the rule. Additionally- level wastes uranium and thorium this preamble.
mills, exemptions): Section 20.1402(a) of the proposed j communication with the public on the (d) Groundwater protection criteria proposed rule was maintained through rule indicated that the objective of (use of Environmental Protection decommissioning is to reduce residual the Electronic Bulletin Board system.
Agency (EPA) drinking water standards radioactivity in structures, soils, j 111. Overview of Public Comments of 40 CFR 141 in NRC's re ulation): groundwater, and other media at the site (e) Public participation means of so that the concentration of each l
Over 100 organizations and Individuals submitted comments on the notification, site. specific advisory radionuclide that could contribute to l boards (SSABs));
l proposed rule. The commenters residual radioactivity is (f) Other procedural and technical represented a variety ofinterests- indistinguishable from the background issues (state compatibility, l Comments were received from Federal radiation concentration for that nuclide.
and State agencies, electric utility grandfathering, finality, minimization of Section 20.1402(a) further noted that, as contamination, readily removable licensees. material and fuel cycle residual radioactivity, radon, a practical matter, it would be extremely licensees, citizen and environmental difficult to demonstrate that such an calculation of TEDE over 1000 years to objective had been met and that a site groups, industry groups. native demonstrate compliance with dose American organizations, and standard); and release limit for unrestricted use was individuals. The commenters offered (g) Other comments (definitions- being proposed'04 Section 20.14 of the proposed rule l from 1 to over 50 specific comments and regulatory guidance: timeliness rule; represented a diversity of views. The indicated that a site would be wastes; recycle; rulemaking process)- considered acceptable for unrestricted commenters addressed a wide range of The comments received from both issues concerning all parts of the rule, public comment and the workshops use if the residual radioactivity that is The reaction to the rule in general and have been factored into the distinguishable from background to specific provisions of the rule was Commission s decisionmaking on the radiation results in TEDE to an average j varied. Viewpoints were expressed both final rule and into the technical basis for member of the critical group of 0.15 i in support of and in disagreement with mSv/y (15 mrem /y) and has been guidance documents implementing the nearly every provision of the rule. final rule. The description of changes to reduced to levels that are ALARA.
Section 20.1402(d) of the proposed IV. Summary of Public Comments, the final rule made as a result of the rule indicated that release for Responses to Comments, and Changes c mments in each of the major subject unrestricted use of a facility is the From Proposed Rule areas f 11 ws each comment / response
, section, preferred approach but that the The following sections describe the alternative of release for restricted use l
Principal public comments received on A. Overal1 License Termination would also be allowed if its use were the proposed rule (organized according Approach and Criteria for Unrestricted justified (see Section IV.B).
to the major subject areas and sections Use (Proposed Rule 5S20.1402 and 20.1W A.2 Criteria for Unrestricted Use.
of the proposed rule), present NRC IncludingTEDE. ALARA,and responses to those comments. and A.! Proposed Rule Content Decommissioning Objective explain principal changes to the The proposed rule (520.1402(d))
proposed rule (where they occur) in A.2.1 Comments. Some commenters presented an overall approach for (including EPA) agreed that 0.15 mSv/
response to those comments. The license termination involving either of y (15 mrem /y) is an acceptable criterion comments are organized according to two basic methods i.e., unrestricted use because it is attainable, provides a
' Copies of NURECS may be purchased from the or restricted use of sites after license margin of safety, and isn't unjustifiably termination. The proposed rule costly. The Department of Energy (DOE)
" *No go "'*"oI2NsIngI"n'".
37 o 200:3-7082. copies are also available from the D indicated that unrestricted use was generally preferred. but that restricted agreed that 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) could be acceptable if reasonable National Technical Informauon Service. 528s Por use was also permitted because it was scenarios were considered although it Royal Road. Springneld. VA 2:161. A copy b nh
' recognized that there may be cases preferred 0.25 mSv or 0.3 mSv/y (25 or
$'b m7nN"NtYr$"tN er where achieving unrestricted use would 30 mrem /y) with ALARA. However, t.even, washington. DC. not be reasonable. most commenters did not agree with the
39060 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday July 21. 1997 / Rules and Reguldtions - -
0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) criterion. Some evaluated. how flexibility would be exposures to. or in some cases below, a opposed 0.15 mSv/y (15 rnrem/y) as incorporated, what degree of 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) criterion would being too high and preferred alternatives simplification of complex models would not generally be unduly burdensome for that reduced the contamination level to be incorporated. and what final criteria most licensees, although in those cases lower levels, including preexisting would be used. where the costs would present an background. The majority of The proposed rule also contained, in unreasonable burden, release of the site commenters opposed 0.15 mSv/y (15 5 20.1402(a), a decommissioning with restrictions placed on its use mrem /y) as being too low and gave objective of reducing residual would provide an alternative means for alternatives that generally included radioactivity to levels that are achieving the same level of protection.
increasing the limit to 0.25,0.3. 0.5, or Indistinguishable from background. Achieving levels of less than 0.15 mSv/
1 mSv/y (25,30,50. or 100 mrem /y) Section 20.1402(a) further noted that y (15 mrem /y). Including achieving the with further reduction based on such an objective may be difficult to decommissioning objective, was ALARA. The categories of reasons given meet as a practical matter. Many generally seen as not cost effective by commenters opposing 0.15 mSv/y commenters opposed establishment of because increasingly larger volumes of (15 mrem /y) as either too high or too the decommissioning objective because concrete and soll would have to be low included potential health impacts it is arbitrary, serves no purpose for removed at a greater net risk due to or the lack of demonstrable health industrial sites. is costly and a waste of deaths from transportation accidents effects at these levels, consistency with resources. is unlikely to be achieved. and because more difficult survey national and international standards, and cannot be measured. Some measurements would have to be made effect of multiple sources, consistency commenters supported establishing the with little net benefit in dose reduction.
with other NRC/ EPA regulations, proposed objective because it is The NRC considered alternatives analysis of costs vs. benefits, ability to reasonable from a health standpoint. suggested in public comments and measure. effect on disposal capacity, Others suggested alternative objectives reexamined the rationale of the effect on sites with naturally occurring such as ALARA or using a dose that is proposed rule. A summary of that radioactive material (NORM), and indistinguishable from the variation in reexamination, along with a description responsibility for cleanup of sites. background. of particular comments on the ratior. ale, The proposed rule indicated that A.2.2 Response.The preamble to the is contained in the following licensees would be expected to proposed rule described three broad subsections.
demonstrate that doses are ALARA considerations as providing the overall A.2.2.1 Level o/~ risk and consistency below the proposed 0.15 mSv/y (15 rationale for the proposed rule's with other EPA /NRC standards. Some mrem /y) dose criterion. Some approach to license termination. The commenters criticized the health risk commenters endorsed ALARA analyses first two considerations were related to associated with a 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /
in specific cases to determine if doses health and safety, i.e., level of risk and y) limit as too high thereby providing should be reduced below 0.15 mSv/y need for a constraint or margin of safety inadequate public protection. In (15 mrem /y) and recommended that a below the I mSv/y (100 mrem /y) public particular, they objected to the NRC's value of 0.03 (or less) mSv/y (3 (or less) dose limit af 10 CFR part 20 to account reliance on ICRP and NCRP because mrem /y) be the ALARA objective. Some for the potential effect of multiple recent research (including findings in of these commenters also requested that sources of radiation exposure. The third the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl the NRC explicitly mandate that consideration was related to practicality accident and in the 1990 report on technical and economic analyses be and reasonableness of costs.The Biological Effects ofIonizing Radiation performed. Other commenters indicated preamble to the proposed rule noted (the BEIR V report)) showed risks to be that ALARA principles and analyses that the risk implied by use of the higher than ICRP or NCRP indicated, or should not be required to determine if proposed 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) dose suggested other sources for limits, cleanup should be performed to reduce is comparable to other standards and including a British standard and a doses below 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) practices of EPA and NRC for areas of National Academy of Sciences because the costs are large in unrestricted access in the vicinity of statement on radiation safety.
comparison with the small reduction in facilities, and that the proposed 0.15 Commenters also indicated that 0.15 risk. Several commenters indicated, mSv/y (15 mrem /y) standard provides a mSv/y (15 mrem /y) was too high alternatively, that ALARA should be substantial margin of safety (constraint) because it is higher than other NRC or allowed above 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) for a single source below the 1 mSv/y EPA standards such as those for and that the rule,should allow ALARA (100 mrem /y) public dose limit in 10 operating reactors.
analyses to be used to permit a licensee CFR part 20 to account for tne potential The majority of commenters criticized to release its site at a value higher than exposure of a member of the public to 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) as too low for 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) (up to 1 other sources. This " constraint" reasons which included that it is far mSv/y (100 mrem /y)) if ALARA approach was noted as being consistent below the level at which health effects calculations support this alternative. with generic constraint have been observed in studies. that the Another commenter disagreed and recommendations made by national and risks associated with other EPA and recommended that ALARA analyses be international scientific bodies such as NRC standards (including 10 CFR parts applied only to demonstrate if the International Commission on 20. 60 and 61. 40 CFR parts 190 and additional cleanup is required below Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the 191. and EPA's radon action level) are 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y). Some National Council on Radiation higher. and that it is based on the linear commenters stated that guidance should Protection and Measurements (NCRP). non-threshold theory which is not be provided describing how ALARA Requtrements related to ALARA. the appropriate for setting such standards.
should be achieved, how doses would decommissioning objective, and These commenters also criticized the be quantified how models and restricted use were included in the rule relationship of the risks implied by this parameters would be selected, what based on the NRC staff analysis in the rule to those implied by standards for 5/ person rem value would be used. how Draft Generic EnvironmentalImpact chemical hazards.
nonradiological risks would be Statement (CEIS) (NUREG-1496) that In general, many commenters stated considered. how net risks would be showed that the costs of reducing that the NRC should work closely with a
I
- Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39061 t
i the EPA in developing its Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) and the appropriately in a range of lx10-2 to decommissioning regulations to assure United Nations Scientific Committee on lx10-) (e g.. the level of lifetime risk that there are no conflicting or duplicate the Effects of Atomic Radiation corresponding to the 1 mSv/y (100 requirements and that the acceptable (UNSCEAR). and have developed mrem /y) public dose limit of 10 CFR risk levels and associated requirements recommendations regarding limitations Pas t 20. that is NRC's basic standard for developed by the two agencies are on exposure to radiation. In particular, public safety is about 1.5x10-)).
compatible or the same. DOE noted that the BEIR Committee conducted major Several of these commenters also a nonuniform approach could reviews of the scientific data on health criticized 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) as significantly impact the DOE risks of low levels of ionizing radiation too low because the linear non-environmental restoration program and in 1972,1980.1988, and 1990, and threshold model overestimates the risk that NRC/ EPA regulations will have an similar reviews were published by and should not be used in the analysis.
impact beyond NRC licensees. There UNSCEAR in 1977,1982.1986 and in response to comments on the risk was some commenter disagreement as to 1988. As noted in the proposed FRG. level. constant exposure over a 30-year whether EPA or NRC should take the these studies have provided more time period to dose levels of about 0.15-lead in issuance of exposure standards. certainty about radiation risks at high 0.25 mSv/y (15-25 mrem /y). results in In its comments on the NRC's proposed doses and dose rates. Using that an estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer rulemaking. the EPA supported the 0.15 information and assumptions of of about 2.3x10-4 to 3.8x10-4 which is mSv/y (15 mrem /y) limit. linearity with low dose / dose rate at the upper end of the acceptable risk in response, the NRC has considered reduction factors. BEIR V contains range suggested by EPA in their recent information and updated risk factors. comments on NRC's proposed rule but recommendations in ICRP Publication Concerning recent information from lower than that in NRC's public dose 60 and NCRP No. I16. These documents the Chernobyl accident noted by a limits.2 These estimates are based on are developed by recognized experts in commenter, there are still ongoing use of the linear non. threshold model the fields of radiation protection and studies of the effects of the accident. A for calculating risk estimates. In health effects and contain reviews of report published by the principal response to specific comments on use of current significant research in radiation international organization studying the linear non-threshold model in health effects. The NCRP is a nonprofit health effects from the accident, the estimating risk. use of the linear non-corporation chartered by the U.S. Organization for Economic Co operation threshold model for estimating Congress to develop and disseminate and Development (OECD), entitled incremental health effects per radiation information and recommendations "Chernobyl: Ten Years On: Radiological dose incurred is considered a reasonable about protection against radiation and to and Health Impact." summarized the assumption for regulatory purposes by cooperate with the ICRP and other findings regarding health impacts by international and national scientific national and international organizations noting that scientific and medical bodies such as ICRP and NCRP. The with regard to these recommendations. observation of the population has not principal international and national The ICRP has continued to update and revealed any increase in cancers or radiological protection criteria, revise its estimates of health effects of other radiation induced disease that including the NRC's, are based on this radiation since its inception in 1928. In could be attributable to the Chernobyl assumption as a measure of its deliberations. ICRP maintains accident. The only area where an conservatism. NRC's policy regarding relationships with United Nations increase was noted was for thyroid use of the linear non threshold model health and labor organizations. cancer. However, these effects most was stated in the preamble to the In addition, the NRC evaluated the <
likely resulted from the release of short- issuance of 10 CFR part 20 (56 FR proposed Federal Radiation Protection lived radiciodine from the accident and 23360: May 21.1991) noting that the Guidance for Exposure of the General the affinity of the thyroid gland for assumptions regarding a linear non-Public (FRG) as published for comment iodine. Similar effects would not be threshold dose effect model are on December 23.1994 (59 FR 66414). In applicable in decommissioning because appropriate for formulating radiation which the EPA under its charter, made radioactive lodine is not expected to be protection standards. Although this recommendations to the President of the a significant contaminant. The report matter continues to be the subject of United States concerning recommended further notes that, while studies further consideration at this time, there !
practices for protection of the public continue on long term effects, it is is not sufficient evidence to convince and erkers from exposure to radiation. unlikely that the exposure to the NRC to alter its policy as part of this Recent recommendations contained in contaminants in the environment will rulemaking.
ICRP 60. NCRP No.116 and the lead to discernible radiation effects in To provide some perspective on the proposed FRG are essentially similar. the general population. Thus, this conservatism of considering dose Use of these sources for formulating research does not appear to indicate that criteria in the range of 0.15-0.25 mSv/
basic radiation protection standards is the findings of the ICRP and NCRP will consistent with NRC's general approach be shown to underestimate risks. 2 The risks are esumated assuming a risk regarding risk decisions as is noted in Specifically with regard to the risk coerncient of 5 10-* per rem and a 30-year brenme the preamble to issuance of 10 CFR part level. some of the cornmenters stated '",P urnhaj us'd A
,jne " "ha
, ds, 9n t e s on 20 on May 21.1991 (56 FR 23360). The that the risk of fatal cancers from 0.15 that ii is unlikely that an individual will continu NRC considers it reasonable and mSv/y (15 mrem /y) is too high in to hve or work in the same area for more than 30 appropriate to use the findings of these comparison with risk goals in the range years. Such an esumate is seen as providmg a i bodies in developing criteria for license lx10-4 to lx10-6 used by EPA in cesenauve numate or potenual risk because Ian t s i termination to apply to its licensees. Comprehensive Environmental ,","o,P ,,
g nera y s h '"
, con nuou r e 8
l The ICRP and NC'RP and EPA have Response. Compensation and Liability nmiting dose. and. ror most or the racilities covere reviewed current significant studies Act (CERCLA) regulations. Other by this rule. the TEDE is controlled by relatively made by other health research bodies. commenters disagreed and stated that
! such as the National Academy of precedents from earlier NRC [ f
'jdnucgid;5}fjfj,5l[f0l8;5f'j'5 time reduce the risk signiricancy te g . at reactor Sciences-National Research Council's rulemakings support a level of risk where much of the contamination is from Co-60 Committee on the Biological Effects of significantly greater than that and more with a ha!r-hre or s.3 years)
39062 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday, July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations - -
y (15-25 mrem /y). It should be noted suggested that 015 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) investigate all man.made exposures that that, as described in the Final CEIS is too low and indicated that the NRC an individual at the site would be (NUREC-1496) prepared in support of limit was inconsistent with ICRP and exposed to so as to demonstrate that the this rulemaking. these levels are small NCRP especially with regard to total dose does not exceed 1 mSv/y (100 when compared to the average level of considerations of multiple sources of mrem /y). The clear implication in this natural background radiation in the exposure, and that it would be unusual simple alternative is that, if individual United States (about 3 mSv/y (300 for an individual to be exposed to sources are constrained to 0.25 mSv/y mrem /y)) and the variation of this multiple sources approaching the 1 (25 mrem /y). NCRP believes it likely.
natural background across the United mSv/y (100 mrem /y) limit. These given the low potential for multiple States. In addition, although as noted commenters suggested that 25-30 exposures. that the public dose limits above NRC is not altering its policy percent of I mSv (100 mrem) is an will be met. Further reductions regarding use of the linear non- adequate margin to account for multiple considering ALARA would still be threshold model as part of this sources. considered by NCRP No.116.
rulemaking. there is uncertainty in response, and by way of (b) ICRP 60. Section 5.5.1. In associated with estimating risks at such background, it is noted that the NCRP in discussing the principles of constraints dose levels. This uncertainty occurs its publication No.116 (Chnter 15) and limits. notes that it is appropriate to because evidence of radiation dose recommends that. for continuous select dose constraints applied to each health effects has only been observed at exposure, the effective dose to members source to allow for contributions from high dose levels (200 mSv (20.000 of the public not exceed 1 mSv/y (100 other sources so as to maintain doses mrem) and above) and significant mrem /y) from all man-made sources, below the I mSv/y (100 mrem /y) limit.
uncertainty in risk estimation is other than medical and not including ICRP 60 does not contain numerical introduced when extrapolating to the natural background sources. Similarly, guidance on dose constraints for very low dose levels being considered in ICRP In Table 6 ofICRP Publication 60. particular practices, but notes that this rulemaking. The health effects recommends a limit of 1 mSv/y (100 cumulative exposures to individuals resulting from even a dose of 1 mSv mrem /y) as the dose limit for the public, from existing sources near I mSv/y (100 (100 mrem) are uncertain. The BEIR and recommendation No. 3 of the draft mrem /y) are rarely a problem primarily Committee stated in its 1990 report EPA Federal Radiation Protection because of the widespread use of (BEIR V) that " Studies of populations Guidance (FRG) indicates that the source-related dose constraints.
chronically exposed to low level combined radiation doses incurred in Further explanation of the radiation such as those residing in any single year from all sources of fundamental concepts of ICRP 60 are regions of elevated natural background exposure (excluding medical and contained in the paper. "The ICRP radiation, have not shown consistent or natural background) should not Principles of Radiological Protection conclusive evidence of an associated normally exceed I mSv (100 mrem) and and Their Application to Setting Limits increase in the risk of cancer." that continued or chronic exposure of and Constraints for the Public from The risk associated with a dose an individual over substantial portions Radiation Sources." by Professor Roger criterion in the range of about 0.15-0.25 of a lifetime at or near 1 mSv/y (100 Clarke, Chairman of the ICRP (January mSv/y (15-25 mrem /y) is generally mrem /y) should be avoided. Consistent 12.1995: a copy is available in the file consistent with the risk levels permitted with these bodies, the NRC issued 10 for this rulemaking in the NRC Public in the performance objectives for low- CFR part 20 (56 FR 23360) in 1991 that Document Room. 2120 L Street NW.
level waste facilities in 10 CFR 61.41 established a public dose limit of 1 (Lower Level). Washington. DC). The and for fuel cycle facilities and for spent mSv/y (100 mrem /y) in 10 CFR 20.1301. paper notes that the constraint approach fuel and high level waste in EPA's 40 These national and international derives from the optimization principle CFR 190 and 191. In addition, doses in bodies also note and agree that, of radiation protection in which, for any l
the range of 0.15-0.25 mSv/y (15-25 although the limit for the public dose source, individual doses should be mrem /y) are comparable to current NRC should be 1 mSv/y (100 mrem /y) from ALARA and also be constrained by practices for decommissioning of all man made sources combined. It restrictions on doses to individuals (i.e..
reactors and certain materials facilities would seem appropriate that the dose constraints). The paper further and fuel cycle facilities. Specifically. amount that a person would receive notes that a constraint is an individual reactors have been decommissioned in from a single source should be further related criterion applied to a single accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.86 reduced to be a fraction of the limit to source to ensure that the overall dose end with an NRC license termination account for the possibility that an limits are not exceeded, and that a dose letter to Stanford University (April 21. Individual may be exposed to more than constraint would therefore be set at a 1982. Docket No. 50-141). Materials one source of man made radioactivity, fraction of the dose limit as a boundary facilities have been released in thus limiting the potential that an on the optimization of that source, accordance with the levels for external individual would receive a dose at the Based on the principles presented in the radiation for beta / gamma exposure in public dose limit. Recommendations paper. the constraint recommended in NRC's Policy and Guidance Directive FC from these bodies as well as from the the paper for a decommissioned site is 83-23. In addition, a dose criterion in NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear 0.3 mSv/y (30 mrem /y) and that further the range of 0.15-0.25 mSv/y (15-25 Waste (ACNW). regarding what the optimization through the ALARA mrem /y) is generally at the low end of fraction from a source should be are: principle is appropriate. As is the case the range of values estimated for Option (a) NCRP No.116. Chapter 15. notes for NCRP No.116. the implication of the 1 of the 1981 Branch Technical Position that no single source or set of sources paper and ICRP 60 is that the constraint (BTP) for sites with uranlurti and under one's control should result in an level is a boundary on the dose from thorium and used for Ra.226 in 10 CFR individual being exposed to more than this source and is sufficient to assure
- 40. Appendix A. for uranium mill 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y). This fraction that members of the pub!!c are not contamination. was presented as a simple alternative to exposed to levels in excess of the public A.2.2.2 Effect ofmultiple sources having a site operator (where a site dose limit. The rationale for this is and margin ofsafety below 1 mSv/y could expose individuals to levels expressed in Section 5.5.1 of ICRP 60 (100 mrem /y). Some commenters greater than 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y)) where it is noted that the critical group
r Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39063 is not normally exposed to the y (100 mrem /y) limit appears more Full time residence and farming at a constraint level from more than one justified and appropriate based on the decommissioned site. (b) exposure source although it may be exposed to likelihood that no more than 3 or 4 while working in a decommissioned some dose level less than the constraint separate regulated sources will affect the buildbg. . id (c) renovation of a newly level from more than one source. critical group at any instance. ACNW (c) The proposed FRC in decrmmissioned building. These further noted that the selection of 0.15 principal limiting exposure scenarios recommendation No. 4 indicates that mSv/y (15 mrem /y) that represents individual sources should have are intended to overestimate dose and about W of the annuallimit assumes also tend to be somewhat mutually
" authorized limits" set at a fraction of that a person will encounter a the I mSv/y (100 mrem /y) limit for all exclusive; i.e., a person living near a sources combined. The draft FRG notes simultaneous dose from seven different decommissioned nuclear facility would regulated sources and that this appears only receive a dose nez he constraint that the basis for this recommendation to them to be unjustified. particularly is the various categories of activities level if his living pattern .ncludes full-because the ALARA principle using radiation that can lead to time residency and farming at the site, accompanies all such NRC regulatory This living pattern would make it exposure to members of the public. and actions.
also notes the need for broad The recommendations of the difficult for the member of this critical assumptions about future activities group to also be a member of the critical previously cited organizations can be involving radiation use. group from other licensed or summarized as suggesting that a The d ft FRG does not recommend a constraint value should be set as part of decommissioned sources. Conversely, a level for any one source although it does the process of optimizing the dose from person having less resideneI than a full note that setting such a fraction will a particular source and that this '
necessarily be a broadJudgment based constraint value should be set as a
- [ e vh vor sa yI t le on a general observation of the boundary value below which further site) might receive doses from other characteristics of existing activities, optimization or ALARA principles s urces but would receive less than the projections for continuing those should be employed. The e nstraint value from the activities In the future. and the potential recommendations also appear to suggest decommissioned site because the for other uses in the future that can be that setting a source constraint of 25-33 exposure time and the number of identified now. Thus, the draft FRC percent of the annual dose limit of 1 Pathways would be reduced. Thus, notes that, in the case of authorized mSv/y (100 mrem /y) is appropriate and glven the assumptions regarding living limits for broad categories of sources. adequate to ensure that the dose limit is Patterns made in evaluating compliance thejudgments will often necessarily be met, and do not tend to lend support to with the constraint level, it is difficult
! t envisi n an individual receiving broad and may lead to somewhat higher 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) as the values. with further implementation of appropriate fraction to which to levels approaching constraint levels the ALARA process left to management constrain the dose from an individual fr m m re than one licensed or of Individual sources within a category. source because it is not likely that a decommissi ned source. It is also likely The draft FRG does not indicate how critical group will be exposed to as that individuals at a decommissioned thisjudgment is to be made although it many as seven sources. Thus the site will actually be exposed to doses cites authorized standards for certain recommendations appear to indicate substantially below the constraint level sources that currently exist, including that the constraint value should be set because of ALARA considerations and 40 CFR part 190 for the nuclear fuel using a more reasonable approach. because of the nature of the cleanup cycle. Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 for in discussing the bases for the 0.15 Process itself, i.e. the process of power reactors.10 CFR part 61.and 40 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) dose criterion in the scabbling of concrete removes a layer of CFR part 141. All of these set authorized proposed rule, the Commission noted in concrete which likely contains a large fractions at 25 percent or less of the I the preamble (at 59 FR 43219. August fraction of the remaining radioactivity.
mSv/y (100 mrem /y) public dose limit. 22.1994) that 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) and the process of soll excavation is a ;
NRC. In its comments on EPA's draft would provide a " substantial" margin of gross removal process that is also likely FRG questioned what was the safety and be appropriate for to remove large fractions of the appropriate fraction of the public dose decommissioned facilities. As part of its radioactivity. For example, the Final limit in 10 CFR part 20 that should be review of the public comments. the GELS indicates that. for the reference used in setting constraints that would Commission considered the cases analyzed removal of a layer of become " authorized" limits. recommendations of the standards. concrete by scabbling will result in (d) In its review of how the principles setting bodies previously cited. Further, doses at levels from 2 to more than 10 and recommendations of the ICRP. In making ajudgment on the times lower than a constraint value. In NCRP and FRG are relevant to the appropriate value of the fraction. the addition to consideration of proposed NRC rule. NRC's Advisory Commission also considered principles decommissioned sources, it is also Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) of optimization. numbers and types of difficult to envision that an individual noted that 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) sources. potential for exposure of could come in contact with more than represented an unnecessarily critical groups to more than one source a few other sources as part of normal conservative fraction of the 1 mSv/y at the constraint value. and assumptions living patterns. For example, the NCRP (100 mrem /y) annual limit. The ACNW regarding the manner in which a critical in NCRP No. 93. "lonizing Radiation agreed that the need to partition the group would be exposed. NRC reviewed Exposure of the Population of the annual recommended dose limit among the assumptions of the Draft and Final United States." September 1987 several sources to which a person is GEIS regarding exposure pathways and reviewed likely radiation exposures to likely to be exposed appearsjustifiable also NUREC/CR-5512 upon which the the public from consumer products, air and noted that no explicit guidance Draft and Final GEIS are based. NUREC/ emissions and fuel cycle facilities from the various national and CR-5512 provides an analysis of (including nuclear power plants) and international bodies on this subject exposure pathways for critical groups at found that, in general, exposure to the exists ACNW stated that a constraint of decommissioned facilities. The public is a small fraction of 1 mSv/y (a 25 percent or 30 percent of the I m5v/ principal limiting scenarios include: (a) few mrem /y). Recent experience on
39064 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday, July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regula'tions -
nuclear power plant emissions and dose was inadequi.te toJustify a 0.15 mSv/y in direct exposure and ingestion commitments (NUREC/CR-2850) tends (15 mrem /y) dose criterion because it pathways and in the number of persons to support the conclusions of NCRP No. used an improper approach (i.e.. exposed and thus the collective 93 about power plant exposures. combining the building and soil exposure and net health effects.
NRC's generic evaluation of uses of analysis). They also believed that it Based on the comments and and doses from various sources, underestimated the amount of information received. additional including decommissioned sources, contamination at reference facilities. as information has been added to the GEIS.
supplemented by the recommendations well as the costs of remediation and Data on contamination submitted by the of the standards setting bodies and final site closeout surveys. commenters were reviewed. compared advisory committee noted above. The Commission considered the with other existing data including that suggests that the substantial added concerns of commenters who criticized in the Draft GEIS, and incorporated into margin of safety provided by the 0.15 inclusion of cost as a consideration in the Final GEIS as appropriate. The Final mSv/y (15 mrem /y) value may be too decisionmaking. NRC methods and GEIS thus considers additional soll restrictive for its intended purpose of policy regarding cost considerations are contamination data as well as soil and constraining doses from this category of stated in NUREG/BR-0058. Rev. 2. and building contamination comparable to sources in establishing an appropriate call for preparation of an appropriate that in the draft GEIS. It also considers boundary constraint Rather, the regulatory analysis in support of the range of disposal costs and survey evaluation leads NRC to conclude that regulatory decisions. NUREG/BR-0058 methods and costs presented in the 25 percent of the public dose limit is a does note that costs cannot be Draft GEIS. as well as those suggested in sufficient and ample fraction to use as considered for regulatory actions the comments. The Commission agrees the limitation for decommissioned necessary to ensure adequate protection with the commenters that consideration sources. of the health and safety of the public: of soil and buildings separately can Thus, the Commission concludes that however, it further notes that costs can provide added information. Thus the a generic dose constraint or limitation be a factor in those cases where there Final GEIS has used the analysis of the for decommissioning sources of 0.25 may be more than one way to reach a Draft GEIS. that contained the data for mSv/y (25 mrem /y) for unrestricted level of adequate protection. Thus, the performing separate analyses, and has release of a site is reasonable from the analysis in the GEIS and RA was presented the data more clearly in standpoint of providing a sufficient and prepared in support of the rulemaking revised tables. In addition, the " knee in.
ample margin of safety for protection of to provide additional information to curve" figures, that provided general public health and safety. It is recognized decisionmakers about the rule criteria information about behavior of costs and that this conclusion reflects ajudgment being considered. impacts associated with cleanup, have regarding the likelihood of individuals The Commission has also considered been replaced with a simpler set of j being exposed to multiple sources with the concerns of those commenters that tables similar to the presentation in the i
cumulative doses approaching 1 mSv/y criticized the analysis of costs and risks Draft Regulatory Analysis,in Tables 6.1 (100 mrem /y) rather than an analysis as incomplete and inadequate and and 6.2. In response to comments based on probability distributions for reviewed information submitted in suggesting that the Final GEIS consider such exposures. However, considering support of those comments. In general, more realistic post decommissioning the kinds of occupancy time typically some of the major comments suggested. uses, the Final GEIS considers a range assumed for the average member of the and provided data on. the following: of possible uses, including residential critical group at a site, it is highly (a) Additional data from actual farming, denser residential use, unlikely that individuals could decommissionings should be included industrial / office use, and higher realistically be expected to experience that would consider variations in site building occupancy rates.
f exposures to other sources with a contamination characteristics, including Given the range of possible l cumulative effect approaching I mSv/y the concentration and volume of parameters, scenarios, and site-specific I (100 mrem /y). contamination and the profile of the situations, the Final GEIS concludes, in A.2.2.3 Cost and practical!ry of contamination with depth: a manner similar to the Draft GEIS that standard. Comments received on cost (b) Reevaluation of remediation and there is a wide range of cost benefit and practicality were analyzed to survey costs should be conducted. results among the different facilities and datermine whether such an analysis can including consideration of variation in within facility types and that there is no provide additional information related waste burial charges, remediation unique algorithm that decisively to the criteria of this rule. This analysis methods. and survey procedures; produces an ALARA result for all includes how, and to what level. (c) Separate analyses of the cost- facilities. Despite these difficulties, the ALARA efforts should be made, how the effectiveness of soll removal and Final GEIS and RA provide the proposed decommissioning objective of building removal should be performed. following results that can be helpful for returning a site to background should be A commenter illustrated that separate gaining insight in making decisions applied, and what provisions should analyses would clarify differences regarding ALARA. the decommissioning there be (e g., restricted use) for sites between costs and impacts of cleanup of objective, and whether restricted use where it is unreasonable or unwise to soils and structures that were not should be permitted:
attain the unrestricted dose criterion. obvious in the Draft GEIS. Commenters (a) Achieving, as an objective of Some commenters criticized the also suggested deleting the " knee-in- ALARA. reduction to preexisting proposed rule for including curve" approach as not clearly background.The objective of returning cons!derations of cost-effectiveness. Illustrating the information regarding a site to preexisting background objecting to using cost in costs and impacts for cleanup of both conditions is consistent with the decisionmaking. Other commenters soils and structures; and concept of returning a site to the criticized the rule because, although (d) Potential alternative uses of the radiological condition that existed they favored use of cost-benefit analyses site lands and facilities should be before its use. However, the question of in decisionmaking, they believed that considered to provide a higher level of whether this objective, as a goal of the cost. benefit analysis in the draft realism in the dose estimates. These ALARA. should be codified by rule CEIS and draft Regulatory Analysis (RA) alternative uses can result in variations depends on a variety of factors.
I Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39065 including cost, practicality (e g.. Decommissioning Management Plan
- Codifying alternate criteria in the measurability) of achieving the (SDMP) (see NUREG-1444. October rule to alleviate the need for exemptions objective, and the type of facility 1993). These sites warrant specific NRC in certain difficult site specific involved. attention regarding their circumstances.
As noted in Section 7.3.1 of the Draft decommissioning.
GEIS. decommissioning is expected to The reasons for these conclusions are For the generic scenarios considered. discussed in the following subsections.
be relatively easy for a certain class of the results of the Final GEIS evaluation A.2.3.1 An unrestrleted use dose non fuel cycle nuclear facilities (i.e.. indicate that there is a wide range of criterion of 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) those that use either sealed radioactive possible cost benefit ratios. 8PPf leable on a generic basis without sources or small amounts of short lived Nevertheless there appears to be a Slfe 5Pecl/ic analysis. For the reasons nuclides), because there is usually no strong indication that removing and described above, the Commission is residual radioactive contamination to be transporting soil to waste burial establishing a dose of 0.25 mSv/y (25 cleaned up and disposed of, or,if there facilities to achieve exposure levels at mrem /y) as an acceptable criterion for is any. It should be localized or it can release of any site for unrestricted use the site at or below a 0.25 mSv/y (25 be quickly reduced to low levels by mrem /y) unrestricted use dose criterion without further analysis of the potential radioactive decay. Decommissionin8 is generally not cost-effective when for exposures from other man-made operations will generally consist of evaluated using NRC's regulatory sources excluding medical. The
' disposing of a sealed source or allowing analysis framework presented in Commission concludes that a generic licensed short-lived nuclides to decay in NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG-1530. dose constraint or limitation for storage, submitting Form NRC-314. and decommissioning sources of 0.25 mSv/
Further, even for a range of cleanup demonstrating (either through radiation levels at or above a 0.25 mSv/y (25 y (25 mrem /y) for unrestricted use of a survey or other means such as site appears reasonable from the mrem /y) criterion. there can also be
- calculation of reduction of the standpoint of providing a sufficient and contamination level by radioactive cases where costs are unreasonable in i
comparison to benefits realized. ample margin of safety in protection of l decay) compliance with the public health and safety. This requirements for license termination. (c) ALARA analysis for stmetures l c nelusi n reflects the Commission,s Because contamination at these facilities containing contamination. Building l floors and walls at nuclear facilities can judgment that the likelihood of j is expected to be negligible or to decay to negligible levels in a short time, be contaminated for a variety of reasons, individuals being exposed to multiple j
l achieving an objective of returning these including system leaks. spills, tracking- s urces with cumulative doses approaching 1 mSv/y (100 mrem /y) is facilities to background would not and activation. The large majority of NRC licensed facilities have zero or quite small. This conclusion is based on appear to be an unreasonable objective c nsideration of the kinds of occupancy of ALARA. limited building contamination.
times generally expected for the average However, in general, for those nuclear Generally, contamination does not member of the critic I group at typical facilities where contamination exists in Penetrate the surface of concrete and decommissioned sites and the low soils and/or structures, the Final CEIS can e ead e d Jets or
,e nght g, probability that individuals could analysis shows, in a manner similar t realistically be expected to experience the Draft GEIS that achieving an reused for some new industrial, office' i o th $
significant exposures to other sources.
ALARA decommissioning objective of '
Particularly with a cumulative effect
,gns ca be tco N return to a preexisting background is 8pproaching i mSv/y (100 mrem /y). In not reasonable as it may result in net decommissioned floors and wi.lls-view of these perspectives, the detriment or because cost cannot be For the range of generic situations e nsidered, the results of the Final GEIS Commission believes that a generic dose l justified because detriments and costs criterlon of 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) l associated with remediation and evaluation indicate that there is a wide provides a sufficient and ample.
! surveys tend to increase significantly at range of possible cost. benefit ratios. It although not necessary, margin to l
low levels, while risk reduction from appears that cleanup of concrete to protect the public.
radiation exposure from criteria near levels at or below 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem / A.2.3.2 Considerations regarding background is marginal. y) can be cost effective, depending on ALARA. Including the decommissioning (b) ALARA analysis for soll the number of individuals projected to objective. The ICRP. NCRP. and draft contamination. Soil contamination can be occupying a building, when using the FRG all suggest that,in addition to entst onsite at nuclear facilities because decisionmaking guidelines of NUREC/ setting a constraint value for an of a variety of reasons including spills CR-0058 and NUREG-1530.
Individual source, achievement of !
or leaks, deposition from airborne A.2.3 Conclusions regarding overall exposures that are ALARA should effluents, or burial or placement of approach to license termination and continue to be considered as a means of system byproducts or other waste unrestricted dose criterion. Based on the optimization. For this reason and materials in onsite soils. The level of above discussion the Commission has because the generic analysis of the Final soll contamination for the large majority concluded that the overall license GEIS tends to indicate that achieving of NRC-licensed facilities (>6000) is termination approach of this final rule doses below 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) either zero or minimal (it is expected should include: may be ALARA for some cases, the rule that the large majority of Agreement . An unrestricted use dose criterion continues to require an ALARA State licensees would have similar of 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) applicable evaluation below the unrestricted dose contamination). Certain facilities (e g., on a generic basis without site specific criterion.
power reactors, fuel facilitie's, industrial analysis: It would be useful if the analyses in facilities) may have greater soll + Considerations regarding ALARA, the Final GEIS could have arrived at a contamination, and certain of these including the decommissioning value of ALARA for all facilities or facilities have been identified as having objective: classes of facilities so that no further extensive soil contamination (albeit . A tiered approach of unrestricted estimate of ALARA would be needed in generally at relatively low levels) and use and allowing restricted use if certain site. specific cases. However, it was not have been placed in the Site provisions are met: and feasible for the Commission to use the
39066 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and* Regula~tions - -
results of the Final GEIS to determine a health and safety, and other societal and assuring that restrictions remain in generic optimum ALARA dose because socio economic considerations. place and that public health and safety of the variety of possible scenarios. Although preparation of guidance is in is protected are discussed further in assumptions, parameters, and site- a preliminary stage, it is anticipated that Section IV.B. In addition because specific conditions that could exist. this guidance would likely indicate that restricting site use can affect the local Nevertheless, the Final GEIS does ALARA during decommissioning community. Sections IV.B and IV.E contain information about certain trends should include typical good practice indicate that licensees should seek in impacts and costs of efforts (e g., floor and wall washing. advice from such affected parties and, in decommissioning that can be useful in removal of readily removable seeking that advice, provide for: (1) preparation of regulatory guidance radioactivity in buildings or in soil Participation by representatives of a supporting site specific ALARA areas), as well as ALARA analyses for broad cross section of community provisions. In particular. It is clear from buildings to levels less than 0.25 m3v/ interests. (2) an opportunity for a the Final GEIS that removal of soll to y (25 mrem /y) based on the number of comprehensive, collective discussion on achieve dose levels below the 0.25 individuals projected to be occupying the issues, and (3) a publicly available mSv/y (25 mrem /y) dose criterion is the building, but that an ALARA summary of the results of all such generally unlikely to be cost-effective, analysis below 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) discussions.
whereas it may be for concrete in certain for soil removal would not need to be A 2.3.4 Codifying alternate site-cases. It is also clear that removal of soll done. It is expected that use of the dose specific criteria in the rule to alleviate or concrete to " pre existing criterion of the final rule and the the need for exemptions in special background" levels is generally not cost regulatory guidance on ALARA would circumstances.The preamble to the effective, achieve consistency with current proposed rule recognized that there Thus, for those facilities where soll or practices where it is cost effective to do could be certain difficult sites building contamination exists, it would so. presenting unique decommissioning be extremely difficult to demonstrate The Commission also believes that, in problems where licensees would seek that an objective of return to background any ALARA analysis conducted to exemptions from the rule s had been achieved. Therefore it is support decisions about site cleanup, all requirements. However, as noted in concluded, as was previously done in reasonably expected benefits and Section IV.C below, because the the proposed rule, that for these sites detriments resulting from the cleanup Commission finds that it would be use of the unrestricted dose criterion activities should be taken into preferable to deal with those facilities with appropriate ALARA considerations consideration in balancing costs and under the aegis of a rule rather than as would be appropriate. For restricted benefits. An example of such a exemptions. the Commission has use. the Final GEIS suggests that detriment would be transportation included in its final rule a provision although removal of soil to achieve dose deaths that might occur as contaminated under which the Commission may levels below 0.25 waste is transported away from the site. terminate a license using alternate mSv/y (25 mrem /y) may not be cost. A 2.3.3 Tiered approach of criteria in certain specific cases. In effective, other simple and I:ss costly unrestricted use and allowing restricted allowing such a provision, it is measures to restrict the use of the site use ifcertain provisions are met. it nevertheless the Commission's such as fencing or barrier plantings may appears reasonable to retain the basic judgment that: (1) It is generally be cost effective and should be structure presented in the proposed rule preferable for sites to reduce doses to considered as part of the ALARA and allow for both unrestricted and 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) due to the process. For groundwater restricted use of sites. Allowance of uncertainty over the number of sources contamination, as discussed later in restricted use is appropriate because where nuclides may be present for a Section IV.D. ALARA considerations there can be situations where restricting long time frame: (2) the large majority of should consider the situation where site use can provide protection of public sites can reduce doses to less than 0.25 populations use groundwater plumes health and safety by reducing the TEDE mSv/y (25 mrem /y) through restricting from a facility as drinking water. to 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) in a more site use: and (3) permitting large in actual situations, it is likely that. reasonable and cost effective manner numbers of licensees to propose even if no specific analysis of ALARA than unrestricted use. This protection is alternate criteria is not advisable were required for soll and concrete afforded by limiting the time period that because it would be contrary to one of removal, the actual dose will be reduced an Individual spends onsite or by the goals of this rulemaking to achieve to below 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) restricting agricultural or drinking water more efficient and consistent licensing because of the nature of the removal use. For many facilities, the time period actions. Therefore, the Commission has process. For example, the process of needed for restrictions can be fairly limited the conditions under which a scabbling of concrete removes a layer of short; i e.. long enough to allow licensee could apply for alternate concrete that likely contains a large radioactive decay to reduce criteria and expects that its use would fraction of the remaining radioactivity. radioactivity to levels that permit be rare. A licensee proposing to and the process of soll excavation is a release for unrestricted use. For terminate a license at a site-specific gross removal process that also is likely example, at reactors. manufacturing level above 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y)
I to remove large fractions of the facilities. or broad scope licensees, would be required to:
l radioactivity. where the principal contaminants can (a) Provide assurance that public To clarify the concept of ALARA, the have half-lives of 5-30 years (e g., Co- health and safety would continue to be regulatory guidance to be prepared will 60. Cs 137), restricting site use for about protected by means of a complete and refer to the existing requirements of 10-60 years can result in achieving comprehensive analysis of possible
$$ 20.1003 and 20.1101 where ALARA unrestricted use levels. Thus, it sources of exposure so that it is unlikely is defined to include considerations of continues to be appropriate to allow that the dose from all potential man-the state of technology economics of restricted use if accompanied by made sources combined, other than improvement in relation to the state of provisions that ensure the restrictions medical, would exceid the I mSv/y technology, economics of improvements remain in place to achieve a dose of 0.25 (100 mrem /y) public dose !!mit of 10 in relation to benefits to the public mSv/y (25 mrem /y). Considerations for CFR part 20;
s Federal Register / Vol. 62, No.139 / Monday, July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39067 (b) Employ. to the extent practical. Regulatory guidance will also be issued a lower criterion such as return to restrictions on site use for minimizing to provide clear guldance on statistical background would adequately protect exposures at the site using the tests and survey methods available to the pubtle. In response. the NRC agrees provisions Section forbelow; IV.B. restricted and use outlined in licensees for demonstrating compliance. with the need to fix responsibility for The Commission is retaining the c'ecommissioning of licensed sites. The (c) Reduce doses to ALARA levels. distinguishable from background planning and financial assurance (d) Seek advice from affected parties provision in the final rule to allow requirements adopted June 27.1988 (53 regarding this approach and. in seeking release of sites when residual such advice, provide for: (1) FR 24018). recognized the responsibility contamination, if any. cannot be of licensees to plan for the cleanup of Participation by representatives of a distinguished from background on a broad cross section of community their sites and to provide adequate statistical basis using proper survey financial assurance for that cleanup.
interests who may be affected by the techniques. In particular, at the levels of Similarly in this regulation, licensees decommissioning. (2) an opportunity for the dose criterion. concentrations of a comprehensive, collective discussion ate not permitted to release a facility for l uranium and thorium in soil are unrestricted or restricted public use i on the issues. and (3) a publicly extremely low and may not be available summary of the results of all unless the dose criteria stipulated in the l distinguishable from background on a such discussions and rule have been satisfied. As noted in the statistical basis even when using proper Final CEIS. further cleanup to levels
( (e) Obtain the specific approval of the survey techniques. such as background is not generally Commission. The Commission will make its decision on allowing use of A.3 Ceneral Comments on the Dose reasonable because it results in very alternate criteria in specific cases only Criterion little additional health benefit with very large costs incurred and could result in l after consideration of the NRC staffs A.J.1 Comments. Commenn were i
recommendations that will address any received on the 0.15 mSv/y (15 an increase in the overall risk associated j with cleanup of a particular site when comments provided by the mrem /y) dose criterion that questioned all factors (e.g.. estimated fatalities due l Environmental Protection Agency and its effect on disposal capacity. the any pubtle comments submitted to transportation accidents during l
relationship to naturally occurring transport of radioactive wastes) are regarding the decommissioning or radioactive material (NORM). and the license termination plan. considered. Therefore. for the reasons Issue of fixing the responsibility for discussed in Section IV.A.2.2. the A description of these circumstances cleanup-and potential resolutions on a site- A32 Response. Some commenters criteria in the final rule are considered appropriate to protect public health and specific basis, short of exempting a were concerned about the effect of 0.15 safety and to permit release of the sites facility from this rule. appears in mSv/y (15 mrem /y) criterion on i Section IV.C. disposal capacity. As noted in Section and termination oflicense.
i i
If license termination still cannot be IV.A.2.2 several of the assumptions. A.4 Average Member of the Critical met even under alternate criteria it may rnodels, and approaches in the CEIS and Group be necessary for the site (or a portion Regulatory Analysis have been revised A. 4.1 Comment. Some commenters thereof) to be kept under license in to include additional data and alternate agreed with provisions of the rule that order to ensure that exposures to the waste disposal costs. A complete would apply the dose limit to an public are appropriately monitored. The discussion of these revisions and average member of the critical group evaluation of the maintenance of a site analysis of disposal capacity is in the rather than to the " reasonably or a portion thereof under a continued Final CEIS and the Regulatory Analysis, maximally exposed (RME) individual" license is outside the scope of this Some commenters questioned the because it is consistent with ICRP and i rulemaking because this rule contains relationship of this rule to NORM. In provides an appropriate protection
, provisions addressing radiological response the criteria of this rule apply standard. Other commenters objected to
! criteria that apply to termination of a to residual radioactivity from activities use of"an average member of the license, under a licensee's control and not to critical group." These commenters A.2. 4 Summary ofrule revisions on naturally occurring background favored applying the dose limit to the
' unrestricted use andplans for radiation. Issues related to NRC licensed most exposed person rather than to an implementation.The final rule has been sites containing materials that occur in average person. They asserted that this modified to indicate that the dose nature are discussed in Sections IV.B would be consistent with the approach criterion for unrestricted use is 0.25 and IV.C. used for other licensed activities and mSv/y (25 mrem /y). Requirements that There is a wide variety of sites environmental protection, a licensee consider how the ALARA containing NORM subject to EPA A. 4.2 Response. Section 20.1003 of requirements of 10 CFR part 20 can be jurisdiction and not licensed by the the proposed rule defined the term applied to achieve a dose below the NRC. The extent to which criteria in this " critical group" as the group of dose criterion have been retained. rule would apply to these sites would be individuals reasonably expected to Regulatory guidance is planned on based on a separate evaluation although receive the greatest exposure to residual how to meet these existing ALARA certain aspects of the rule. for example radioactivity for any applicable set of requirements. In addition, to assist in control of sites with restrictions circumstances. For example, if a site implementing the dose criterion. imposed. could be similar. For further were released for unrestricted use, the regulatory guidance will also be issued discussion see also Section IV.G.6. critical group would be the group of to provide clear guidance to licensees With regard to responsibility for individuals reasonably expected to be on how to demonstrate com'pliance with cleanup, several commenters stated that the most highly exposed considering all the dose criterion by using either: the 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) limit is too reasonable potential future uses of the (a) Screening analyses that use high because licensees should have to site. As noted in the preamble to the relatively simple approaches for clean up contamination that they proposed rule (at 59 FR 43218: August demonstrating compliance; or created. Because these are final 22.1994) NUREC/CR- 5512 defines the (b) Site specific modeling for more licensing actions befort releasing the critical group as an individual or complex sites and contamination. site to the public, they stated that only relatively homogeneously exposed
Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and' Regula'tions 39068 group expected to receive the highest would be prohibitively expensive. result B.2.3 The durability ofinstitut/onal exposure within the assumptions of a in net public or environmental harm. or controls. Several commenters opposed particular scenario and the dostmetric not be technically achievable: or expressed concern about the ability of methods of 10 CFR part 20. The average (4) Obtained advice on the restrictions institutional controls to provide needed member of the critical group is an from the affected community by protection of public health and safety at individual who is assumed to represent convening a site specific advisory decommissioned sites because they the most likely exposure scenario based board,and; cannot be enforced indefinitely into the on prudently conservative exposure (5) Provided financial assurance to future and can be struck down or assumptions and parameter values ensure the controls remain in place. become ineffective. Other commenters within model calculations. For example. favored reliance on more flexible the critical group for the building B.2 Comments on Acceptability of institutional controls and recommended occupancy scenario can be the group of Restricted Use for Decommissioned that the rule should not assume that regular employees working in a building Sites they will eventually fail. Approaches for that has been decontaminated. If a site A variety of comments was received using institutional controls were were converted to residential use the on the restricted use option. The major suggested including Federal critical group could be persons whose comment categories are listed below. Government ownership of sites or occupations involve resident farming at Although the comment categories legislative solutions for complex sites the site. not an average of all residents address somewhat separate issues, they similar to the National Waste Policy Act on the site. are listed and answered together to (NWPA) of 1982.
Although the terms " critical group" develop a unified response on the issue B.2.4 The 1 mSv/y (100 mrem /y) cap and " average member" are new terms in of restricted use. if fnstitutional controls fall. Some NRC regulations they are consistent B.2.1 The general concept of commenters stated that the proposed I with ICRP practice of defining and using restricted use. Some commenters agreed mSv/y (100 mrem /y) restriction is a critical group when assessing with the proposal to permit restricted unreasonably low when used to assess individual public dose from low levels the worst case scenario. They use of decommissioned sites because it of radioactivity slmilar to those rec mmended that the rule should not may be financially impractical to reach eupected from a decommissioned site- stipulate that a licensee must assume unrestricted levels, especially if health ICRP recommends that such analyses and safety considerations do not that all institutional controls will should considu exposure to individuals warrant it and because restricted release eventually fail. Alternatively, they representative of those expected to recommended that a 5 mSv/y (500 allows realistic land uses to be receive the highest dose using cautious ack wedif considered. Some commenters opposed [ 3 ,u ns I l but reasonable assumptions. This the concept of any planned restricted approach has been adopted in the controls or engineered features fall. The release of decommissioned sites because proposed FRG and is also consistent commenters believed that a 5 mSv/y of concerns over the durability and (500 mrem /y) limit is consistent with with the recommendations of the effectiveness of institutional controls.
National Academy of Sciences on the other regulations since residential use and because license termination should of an industrial site is unlikely, and Yucca Mountain Standards (August be a final action with full licensee 1995).
failure of controls is speculative. Several responsibility for site disposition and commenters objected to the last A. 4.3 Summary ofrule revisions. cleanup costs previously considered.
Based on this discussion the proposed sentence of proposed $ 20.1405(d), that B.2.2 The need forlicensees to stated that licensees may not assume rule has not been changed- demonstrate that restricted use ls any benefits from an earthen cover.
B. Criteria for Restricted Use (Proposed appropriate for their sites. In allowing other earthen barriers, or engineered Rule SS20.1402(d) and 20.1405) restricted use, the proposed rule would controls in complying with the 1 mSv/
have required licensees to demonstrate y (100 mrem /y) cap unless specifically B.1 Proposed Rule Content the appropriateness of restricting site authorized by the Commission and As described in the proposed use for their particular situation by recommended that the sentence be rulemaking and restated in Section showing that it would be " prohibitively deleted. Some commenters '
l IV.A.2.2. there are potential situations expensive," " technically unachievable." recommended that the rule specify the l
under which termination of a license or cause " net public or environmental extent to which licensees may take under restricted conditions could be harm" to achieve unrestricted use credit for engineered barriers. Other used in the decommissioning of a site. (proposed $ 20.1405(a)). Some commenters stated that 1 mSv/y (100 Proposed S 20.1405 indicated that a site commenters supported the restricted mrem /y) is too high and that a lower would be considered acceptable for use of sites but indicated that the value (e g., 0.15. 0.3. 0.5. 0.75 mSv/y license termination under restricted proposed requirements for (15. 30. 50 or 75 mrem /y)) should be conditions if the licensee: demonstrating its appropriateness were applied because institutional controls (1) Made provisions for institutional unreasonably restrictive. These are uncertain, concerns over health controls that provide reasonable commenters stated that the provisions effects would exist. and doses in excess assurance that the TEDE to the average in proposed $ 20.1405(a) were of 40 CFR Part 190 are unreasonable.
member of the critical group would not structured so narrowly that few sites Some commenters agreed with exceed the unrestricted use dose would be able to qualify for license establishing a maximum TEDE of I criterion; termination under restricted conditions. mSv/y (100 mrem /y) in the event (2) Reduced residual radi6 activity at Commenters stated that these terms institutional controls are no longer in the site so that, if the controls were no should be explained, deleted, or effect.
longer in effect. there is reasonable replaced with a less onerous B.2.5 Financial assurance for assurance that the TEDE would not requirement allowing restricted use if restricted use. Some commenters I enceed I mSv/y (100 mrem /y): justified by an ALARA analysis or if questioned the need for financial (3) Demonstrated that complying with there were continued ownership and assurance provisions and suggested that the unrestricted use dose criterion industrial use of the site. more flexibility be provided for i
l 5
Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39069 licensees. Other commenters quesooned in Section IV.B.3.1. the proposed rule appropriate for determining whether whether the financial assurance allowed restricted use because release of restricted use shruld be permitted.
provisions were adequate. One a site under restricted conditions can be Therefore. the Commission has !
commenter stated that there should be an appropriate method of modified the rule to incorporate an I more detail on financial assurance decommissioning from both health and ALARA standard rather than prohibitive provided in the rule.
safety. and cost-benefit bases, especially costs as the basis for selecting restricted !
B.3 Response f r certain facilities with soll use. To support a request for restricted B.3.1 The general concept of contamination. Nevertheless it did so use, a licensee would perform an under the philosophy (stated in ALARA analysis of the risks and restricted use. Current NRC regulations s 20.1402(d)) that. In general, pertalning to decommissioning. issued benefits of all viable alternatives and I termination of a license for unrestricted include consideration of any detriments.
j on June 27.1988 (53 FR 24018). do not use is preferable because it requires no contain provisions for release of a This could include estimated fatalities facility for restricted use but limit a additional precautions or limitations on from transportation accidents that might use of the site after licensing control occur as the result of transport of wastes licensee s options in decommissioning ceases. in particular for those sites wi'h from cleanup activities. and societal and to release of a facility for unrestricted l long lived nuclides. In addition, there socioeconomic considerations such as l use. Experience with decommissioning may be societal or economic benefits of facilities since 1988 has indicated the potential value to the community of that for certain facilities, achieving related to future value of the unrestricted use of the land.
unrestricted use of the land to the The proposed rule also noted that
! unrestricted use might not be community. Thus. S 20.1405(a) of the because the net public or environmental appropriate because there may be net public or environmental harm in proposed rule stated the provisions the damage through removal. transport, and achieving unrestricted use, or because NRC would consider in evaluating a disposal of materials could be larger expected future use of the site would request for termination of a site under than the benefit in dose reduction at the likely preclude unrestricted use, or restricted conditions including that it is site. It may be more reasonable for the
". prohibitively expensive" or there is material to remain onsite. The Final because the cost of site cleanup and CEIS illustrates when it may be waste disposal to achieve unrestricted . net public or environmental harm" in achieving unrestricted release. Inappropriate. when considering such use is excessive compared to achieving the same dose criterion by restricting The Commission continues to believe relative impacts. to comple;ely use of the site and eliminating exposure that unrestricted use is generally remediate a site to an unrestricted level !
that assumes activities such as farming I pathways. The input received from the Preferable for the reasons noted. or residence, and then, as would be the rulemaking workshops held from However, the NRC has reexamined the provisions for allowing restricted use case for a number of currently licensed January through May 1993 confirmed sites, actually employ a commercial or this experience and indicated that because of the potential benefits. In explaining the provision of industrial use that would eliminate restricted use of a facility,if properly ,
significant pathways of exposure.
designed and if proper controls were in Prohibitive , cost the proposed rule Specific examples include reactors or place, was a reasonable means for noted (at 59 FR 43220) that costs to terminating licenses at certain facilities. achieve unrestricted use may be other materials facilities where the dose is controlled by relatively short. lived Current NRC-licensed sites that might *' excessive." indicating that this means nuclides (e g.. Co-60 and Cs.137 with request restricted use are largely there may be situations where removal half lives of 5.3 and 30 years.
Industrial sites. It is reasonable for them and disposal oflarge quantities of . respectively) that will decay to to remain industrial because of their material is simply "not reasonable' from a cost standpoint. Consistent with unrestricted dose levels in a finite t!me locations and previous siting period of institutional control (e.g..
considerations. Nevertheless there may this, the proposed rule noted in about 10-60 years). For these facilities, be instances where, if a site had high 5 20.1402(d) that the Commission there may be net public or cu!tural value, such considerations expected licensees to make every environmental harm from removing and would be presented as part of the public reasonable effort to achieve unrestricted transporting soil to achieve unrestricted '
input that is part of the process of release. The specific cost that would be use compared to restricting use for a restricted use (see Section IV.E) and considered excessive, not reasonable, or period of time associated with a could be considered as a socioeconomic Prohibitive was not included in the reasonable decay period (see the Final effect under the ALARA process. proposed rule. This value depends on GEIS. Chapter 6). Thus the The proposed rule thus provided for costs of unrestricted and restricted use. consideration of potential detriments both unrestricted and restricted use of and on an evaluation of these from cleanup activites and the sites. Both the Draft and Final GELS alternatives using the regulatory possibility of net harm have been provide discussions of the analysis framework presented in retained in the final rule. Both terms, environmental impact of NUREC/BR-0058 and NUREG-1530. net public harm and net environmental J decommissioning for the reference sites NUREC/BR-0058 provides a harm, are retained in the final rule to
(
and of the costs related to decisionmaking tool for deciding indicate that a licensee's evaluation decommissioning. From this it may be between regulatory alternatives. As should consider the radiological and concluded that release of certain noted in the discussion below, restricted nonradiological impacts of facilities for restricted use is an use with appropriate institutional decommissioning on persons who may appropriate option assuming the controls (accompanied by =ff!cient be impacted. as well as the potential presence of the specific provisions provisions for ensuring tidr impact on ecological systems from I described below to ensure that effectiveness) can provide protection of decommissioning activities.
appropriate controls are in place so that public health and safety because the B.3.3 The durability o/ institutional the restrictions on use remain in effect. dose level will be reduced to the same controls. As described in Sections B.J.2 The need forlicensees to 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrern/y) criterion as for IV.B.3.1 and IV.B.3.2. use of restrictions demonstrate that restricted use is unrestricted use. "t hus, use of the that employ institutional controls l
appropriate for their sites. As described guidelines in NUREG/BR-0058 is appears appropriate in specific l l I
39070 Federal ster / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday, July 21. 1997 / Rules anci Regulations situations. However, an important reasonably be expected to be effective 0.3. or 0.85 Sv/y (15. 30. or 85 question raised in the public comments into the foreseeable future. mrem /y)) or higher than the proposed relates to the durabihty ofinstitutional To provide added assurance that the cap.
controls, i.e.. whether the controls pub!!c will be protected. the final rule The Commission has reviewed the provide reasonable assurance that the incorporates provisions ($20.1405(c)) comments suggesting that the specific exposure will be limited to the dose for financial assurance to ensure that the cap value be set at levels other than I criterion in the rule over the periods in controls remain in place and are mSv/y (100 mrem /y).The rationale for question. effective over the period needed. With setting the cap at I mSv/y (100 For many types of decommissioned these provisions. the Commission mrem /y) pcesented in the proposed rule sites released under restricted believes that the use of reliable (at 59 FR 43221) was that the value of conditions where potential doses to an institutional controls is appropriate and the cap coincides with NRC's public individual are caused by relatively that these controls will provide a high dose limit of 10 CFR Part 20. This value short. lived nuclides, the radiation level of assurance that doses will not was premised on the assumption that exposure that could potentially be exceed the dose criterion for circumstances could develop in which received were controls to fall will unrestricted use. the restrictions rnight no longer be gradually decrease to below the Although the Commission believes effective in limiting the exposure unrestricted dose criterion so the that failure of active and passive scenarios or pathways. Although this restrictions on use would no longer be institutional controls with the occurrence need not be assumed for necessary. Examples of facilities with appropriate provisions in place will be planning purposes. a safety net is nuclides of this type include reactors or rare, it recognizes that it is not possible needed to prevent exposures in excess materials facilities for which the to preclude the failure of controls. of the public dose limits. A cap using principal dose contributing nuclides Therefore. In the proposed rule. the the public dose limits would provide an after decommissioning are Co 60 or Cs. Commission included a requirement additional level of protection in the 137 (half lives 5.3 and 30 years, that remediation be conducted so that unlikely event that restrictions were not respectively), or other similarly short. there would be a maximum value effective. Although. as noted in Section lived nuclides. The Commission has (" cap") on the TEDE from residual IV.A.2. the Commission has used a considered the effectiveness of radioactivity if the institutional controls fraction of the public dose limit in institutional controls for up to 100 years were no longer effective in limiting the setting the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) dose in similar contexts such as low-level possible scenarios or pathways of limit for decommissioning, it indicated waste disposal sites. Because exposure. The cap included in the in the proposed rule that. in the case of decommissioned facilities will have proposed rule was I mSv/y (100 the " cap" or " safety net." it did not minimal contamination compared to mrem /y). which is the public dose limit believe that fractionation, i.e., setting a large volumes buried at low-level codified in 10 CFR part 20. Pubtle cap value less than I mSv/y (100 disposal sites, the Commission believes comments on the proposed rule because:
that institut!onal controls using suggested other values for the cap. both mrem /y),
(a) The would(100 1 mSv/y bemrem necessary/y) cap is relatively simple deed restrictions can higher than and lower than the less than values suggested in the provide reasonable assurance that the proposed value. The analysis of those proposed FRG for members of the public TEDE will be below the 0.25 mSv/y (25 comments. and their potential effect on in unusual circumstances and less than mrem /y) dose criterion with restrictMns the institutional controls used. is values used for other types of facilities in place. discussed in Section IV.B.3.4. where some type of institutional control in a limited number of cases. In The Commission believes based on is used:
particular those involving large the discussion in this section on the (b) The Commission believes that quantitles of uranium and thorium viability of controls and or. 'he failure of all site restrictions at contamination the presence oflong. provisions for financial aturance and decommissioned sites is a highly lived nuclides at decommissioned sites for a " cap." described in Sections unlikely event; and will continue the potential for radiation IV.B.3.4 and IV.B.3.5. that the provision (c) Radioactive decay for relatively exposure beyond the 100-year period, for restricted use and institutional short lived nuclides (e.g., Co-60 and Cs-More stringent institutional controls controls will provide a high level of 137). that are the principal dose will be required in these situations. assurance that public health and safety contributing contaminants at the large such as legally enforceable deed will be protected. Licensees seeking majority of NRC licensed facilities. will restrictions and/or controls backed up restricted use will be required to actually reduce the dose level over a by State and local government control or demonstrate, to NRC's satisfaction that period of time for most sites that will ownership, engineered barriers, and the institutional controls they propose provide an additional margin of safety t'ederal ownership, as appropriate, are comparable to those discussed equivalent to fractionation of the limit.
Federal control is authorized under above. are legally enforceable, and are The rationale for setting a cap value Section 151(b) of the National Waste backed by financial assurance. at I mSv/y (100 mrem /y) continues to Policy Act (NWPA). Requiring absolute Licensees will also be required to appear appropriate. In addition. setting proof that such controls would endure demonstrate that the cap will be met. a cap at a lower value does not appear over long periods of time would be The Commission believes that the warranted because: (1) It appears difficult, and the Commission does not provision for restricted use should be arbitrary to assume that the same person intend to require this oflicensees. retained in the final rule, would be an average member of the Rather, institutional controls should be B.J.4 The 1 mSv/y (100 mrem /y) cap critical group both near a facility where established by the licensee ivith the lfinstitutional controls fall. A " cap" of there was failure of controls and near objective of lasting 1000 years to be 1 mSv/y (106 mrem /y), corresponding to another decommissioned facility; and consistent with the time-frame used for the public dose !!mit, was proposed in (2) the failure of restrictions would be calculations (and discussed in Section S 20.1405(d) of the proposed rule. infrequent and therefore it is likely that IV.F.7). Having done this, the licensee Various possible " cap" values were the overall lifetime risk to the critical would be expected to demonstrate that suggested by the commenters, both group would still be maintained at the institutional controls could lower than (e.g.. values such as 0.15. levels comparable to unrestricted use
l Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday, July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39071 while providing a more cost effective Based on this existing requirement, effectiveness of institutional controls at l use of resources. the Commission has incorporated a the site every 5 years after license l Although the Commission did not specific provision in the final rule under termination to ensure that the I fractionate the cap. It did include in the which a licensee could propose institutional controls are in place and proposed rule and continues to include exceeding the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem /y) the restrictions are working, and that in the final rule. a provision that would cap in unusual site specific there is financial assurance to l require exposures to be below the cap to circumstances if, in addition to the reestablish controls if the recheck l a degree that is ALARA. The purpose of normal provisions of restricted use. It indicates otherwise. This 5 year recheck
! this requirement is that licensees would also met the following additional is conalstent with 10 CFR Part 20 and not simply leave behind :ontamination stringent provisions: also with the FRG. Recommendation l corresponding to the vaue of the cap (a) A licensee would have to No. 4. that states that in some unusual but would evaluate the level below the demonstrate that it cannot meet the i situations the I mSv/y (100 mrem /y) cap that is cost effective and reduce the mSv/y (100 mrem /y) cap because of net may be exceeded temporarily in contamination to that level. This will Public or environmental harm or situations that are not anticipated to provide a requirement that will prohlbltive costs by means of a site- recur. It is also consistent with the effectively fractionate the doses and specific evaluation of the issues approach for institutional controls used result in doses not dissimilar from those associated with complying with the 1 in CERCLA that allows for release of suggested by the commenters if it is mSv/y (100 mrem /y) cap. The NRC sites without a cap providing there is cost. effective to do so. This approach is expects that only a very few facilities continuous checking on the status of the consistent with the current (e g , sites with soil contaminated with controls.
l requirements in 10 CFR part 20, naturally occurring radionuclides in The NRC would retain the authority l
Based on its experience with sites small radioactivity levels but large to take appropriate action in those with difficult contamination issues, in v lumes, certain SDMP sites) could unusual situations when both the 5 particular those sites treated in NRC's Provide sufficient rationale for seeking a mSv/y (500 mrem /y) cap was in effect SDMP, and as described in the Final higher cap. Although the proposed rule and the controls had failed. This action CElS. the Commission anticipates that c ntained a reference to the use of might include oversight of actions.
l
' there may be sites where compilance Prohibitive cost, it did not quantify or needed to reinstate the controls and any with the I mSv/y (100 mrem /y) cap define these costs beyond noting that necessary cleanup and/or monitoring could cause impacts resulting from they would be excessive or actions.
cleanup to that level (e g., estimated unreasonable. The Commission believes B.3.5 Financialassurance. As a industrial or "affic fatalities associated it appmpriate to consider a prohibitive second provision for ensuring that the I cost to be one that would be an order institutional controls provide protection
- 5) f magnitude greater than that contained of public health and safety, financial at ex ed the benef s of ri E as part of the decisionmaking guidelines assurance requirements were included a n e po s ca s a mt in NUREG/BR-0058, although a lower to ensure that funds will be available to
> environment) or that diminish the net fact r may be appropriate in specific enable an independent third party.
! benefit to where costs of cleanup would situations when a licensee could including a governmental custodian of a be prohibitive compared to the net become financially incapable of carrying site, to implement and ensure continued benefit. Although the NRC recognizes out decommissioning safely; cffectiveness of institutional controls.
(b) Under these circumstances, the Some commenters questioned whether that it is always the licensee s licensee would be required to reduce these provisions were necessary while responsibility to clean up the contamination so doses would be no others questioned whether they went far contamination that it has caused the appropriate course of action should not greater than the 5 mSv/y (500 mrem /y) enough. In response, the Commission value currently contained in continues to believe the proposed result in net public or environmenta!
$ 20.1301(a). Also, the actual dose level provisions are reasonable and adequate harm from a cleanup, and it is not clear to which the licensee would have to for their purpose. The provisions are that it is beneficial if resources are spent clean the site would be less than that consistent with financial assurance in a manner prohibitive in relation to value based on an ALARA evaluation of requirements currently in 10 CFR Parts other benefits which could be achieved, the site. This provision is consistent 30,40. 50. 61. 70, and 72 which call for or if a licensee is put into a financial with existing requirements in position where it cannot continue to financial assurance to provide funds for i 5 20.1301(c) that permit levels up to decommissioning in cases when perform the cleanup safely- values of 5 mSv/y (500 mrem /y) for licensees might otherwise be financially Although a cap higher than I mSv/y specific cases unable to remediate a site. Reference to (100 mrem /y) would result in using a (c) Durable institutional controls must an independent third party is necessary value in excess of the public dose limit be in place.These controls could . In the regulations because after the in 5 20.1301(a), existing requirements in include significant engineered barriers license is termiriated, the licensee may
$ 20.1301(c) permit levels up to values and/or State. local, or Federal no longer be the party ensuring the of 5 mSv/y (500 mrem /y), provided that Government control of sites or effectiveness of the controls. Because a licensee would apply to the maintenance of site deed restrictions so the purpose of this provision is to Commission for permission to operate at that site access is controlled. Under provide broad requirements for financial that level submit reasons why it is Section 151(b) of the NWPA of 1982, the assurance necessary to ensure that the necessary, and indicate procedures to DOE has already been authorized to take controls continue to limit the dose, maintain doses ALARA. The proposed possession of waste disposal sites in more specific details are not included in FRG. Recommendation No. 4. states that certain situations. A similar provision in the rule. The level of detail in the rule the dose from all sources should not Section 151(c) was used as the vehicle is similar to that in other similar NRC exceed I mSv/y (100 mrem /y) although to transfer custody of the Amax site regulations on financial assurance. As it may be exceeded temporarily in from Amax to DOE: requested by a commenter. the funding unusual situations that are not expected (d) A licensee would make provisions provisions include a trust fund (or to recur. for a verification of the continued similar funding mechanism) for
l 39072 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and
- Regulations surveillance and enforcement of the C. Alternate Criteria /or License In addition. as discussed in Section I institutional controls. The financial Terminarlon IV.A. the Commission has concluded i assurance requirements must be in place C.! Codifying Provisions for Certain that for any site where the 0.25 mSv/y l before the license is terminated and be (25 mrem /y) dose criterion is met, there Facilities That the Proposed Rule will be a very low !!kelihood that I
flexible enough to allow for the Suggest d Ex mpting I necessary site specific details. individuals who use the site will be I C.1.1 Proposed rule content.The exposed to multiple man-made sources l B.4 Summary of Rule Revisions on preamble to the proposed rule noted combined. excluding medical, with Restricted Use that there were several existing licensed cumulative doses approaching 1 mSv/y sites where public health and the (100 mrem /y). Thus, the discussion in Based on the discussions above. environment may best be protected by Section IV.A of this notice establishes restricted use has been retained in the use of alternate criteria. although these this level as a sufficient and ample, but final rule. Based on its analyses in the situations were not codified in the not necessary, margin of safety.
Final GE!S and its experiences with proposed rule; rather, it was thought Based on these considerations. the actual decommissioned sites, the that these facilities might seek Commission has included in the final Commission recognizes that, although exemptions (under 520.2301) from the rule a provision under which the unrestricted use is generally preferred, criteria of this rule. Commission may terminate a license restricted use (when properly designed C.J.2 Comments. Some commenters using alternate criteria in its final rule.
In accordance with the rule's provisions recommended that the rule should not The Commission expects the use of discussed in Section IV.B.3) can provide apply to any facility that possesses large alternate criteria to be confined to rare a cost-effective alternative to volumes of low level contaminated situations. Therefore, for the reasons unrestricted use for some facilities and wastes (including SDMP sites) and previously listed in Section A.2.3.4. the maintain the dose to the average should provide a specific exemption or Commission has limited the conditions member of the pertinent critical group at exemption procedures for the " tens" of under which a licensee would apply to the same level. Thus, the Commission existing facilities for which application the NRC for, or be granted use of.
has replaced the prohibitively expensive of the proposed criteria is inappropriate alternate criteria to unusual site-specific provision forjustifying restricted use and too restrictive. Commenters circumstances subject to the following with a reasonable cost provision. The suggested that guidance is needed on provisions:
net harm provision remains the same. sites that should be turned over to the (a) A licensee must provide assurance The general cap value has been retained Federal Government after license that for the site under consideration, it at I mSv/y (100 mrem /y) as has the termination and sites that should be is unlikely that the dose to an average requirement that licensees reduce the kept under license. Commenters also member of the critical group for that site actual level of contamination to levels recommended that NRC ask Congress to from all potential man made sources as far below the cap as is ALARA. where amend the NWPA of 1982 to allow combined, other than medical, would appropriate. The rule has been modified Federal ownership of extensively exceed the I mSv/y (100 mrem /y) to allow for exceeding the I mSv/y (100 contaminated sites. Other commenters public dose limit of 10 CFR Part 20. The mrem /y) cap in site specific situations objected to exempting facilities from the Commission envisions that a licensee and under specific provisions. No Proposed radiological criteria and stated proposing to use alternate criteria will change has been made to the financial that the rule should cover all have to provide a complete and assurance provisions of the rule. decommissioning cases. comprehensive analysis that would C.L3 Response. For the very larg( build upon generic cont,iderations such A number of comments were also majority of NRC licensed sites [the as those discussed in Section IV.A.2.
received on public participation aspects Commission believes that the 0.25 and also include site-specific of restricting site use.The final rule will mSv/y (25 mrem /y) urucs'rkted and considerations. To guide the require that licensees proposing to restricted use drae criterion in i te rule Commission in its review of such decommission by restricting use of a site is an appropriate and achievable analyses, the NRC is continuing to shall seek advice from individuals and criterion for decommissioning. develop generic information on the institutions in the community who may However the Commission is potential for exposure to radioactivity be affected by the decommissioning and concerned about the possible presence from various sources. including that. In seeking that advice, the licensee of certain difficult sites presenting decommissioned sources, to supplement shall provide for: (1) Participation by unique decommissioning problems. currently available knowledge, and is representatives of a broad cross section Licensees of these sites who would have planning to make this information of community Interests who may be sought exemptions to the proposed publicly available through publication affected by the decommissioning: (2) an rule's criteria would have had to follow of a NUREG report. Site-specific factors opportunity for a comprehensive, processes similar to the other facilities that the Commission might review in collective discussion on the issues by covered by the rule. In addition, such cases could include soil and the participants represented; and (3) a licensing effichncy. consistency of aquifer characteristics. the nature of the publicly available summary of the application o ' .coKrements, and critical groups likely to use the site, the results of all such discussions. oversight of ti.se facilities can best be detailed nature of the mntamination including a description of the achieved by codifying application of patterns at the site. and the individualviewpoints of the criteria to all faellities. Therefore, the characteristics of residual radionuclides participants on the issues arid the extent Commission believes that it is preferable remaining at the site including of agreement and disagreement among to codify provisions for these facilities considerations related to whether the the participants on the issues. The under the aegis of the rule rather than nuclides are long lived or short lived; )
details of the comments received and requiring licensees to seek an exemption (b) A licensee will employ. to the the rationale for the public participation process outside the rule as was extent practical, restrictions on site use aspects of the final rule are discussed in contemplated in the proposed for minimizing exposure at the site Section IV.E. rulemaking. using the provisions for restricted use J
Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39073 outlined in IV.B. above. and in specialized circumstances and under although. In actual practice, cleanup of
$ 201403, the provisions described above. uranium mill tailings results in radium (c) A licensee will indicate that a levels I wer than the 10 CFR part 40 comprehensise analysis had been C.2 Exclusion of UraniumRhorium performed of the risks and benefits of all Mills Pr p sed in 520.1401(a) standards. and radium is usually removed to background levels during viable alternatives and consideration of C 2J Proposed rule content. The cleanup of uranium and thorium to the any detriments, such as transportation proposed rule stated that, for uranium levels in existing NRC guidance fatalities that might occur as the result mills. the criteria of the rule apply to the documents.
of cleanup activities, to reduce the facility but do not apply to the disposal However, in other mill and ISL site residual radioactivity at the site to levels of uranium mill tailings or to soil areas proximate to locations where that are ALARA: cleanup. The proposed rule referred to radium contamination exists (e g.. under (d) A Itcensee will seek advice from 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. where the mill building in a yellow cake affected parties regarding this approach. criteria already exist (S20.1401(a)). storage area, under/around an ore pad.
In seeking such advice, the licensee will C.2.2 Comments. Comments on the and at ISLs in soils where spray provide for: (1) Participation by proposed rule generally agreed with the irrigation has occurred as a means of representatives of a broad cross section exclusion for disposal of mill tailings disposal) uranium or thorium would be of community interests who may be and soil cleanup. Commenters also the radionuclide of concern. A difficulty affected by the decommissioning; (2) an recommended that the rule exempt in applying 10 CFR part 40. Appendix opportunity for a comprehensive, conventional thorium and uranium mill A. as a standard for uranium and j collective discussion on the issues by facilities and in situ leach (ISL) thorium, is that it does not have any the participants represented; and (3) a (specifically uranium solution cleanup standards for soil publicly available summary of the extraction) facilities from the scope of contamination from radionuclides other results of all such discussions, coverage because they stated that the than radium. Application o^the including a description of the decommissioning of these sites is decommissioning dose crimthsofthe individual viewpoints of the covered by Appendix A to 10 CFR part final rule to these areas (while < .aining participants on the issues and the extent 40 and 40 CFR part 192- the 10 CFR 40. Appendix A certbrd of agreement and disagreement among C.2.3 Response. Currently, there are for radium) would result in 3 -itution the participants on the issues (the regulations applicable to remediation of where the cleanup standaril N that rationale for these public participation both inactive tallings sites, including small portion of the mill site would be aspects are discussed in more detail in vicinity properties. and active uranium lower than the standard for the large Section IV.E); and and thorium mills. Under the Uranium windblown tailings areas where radium (e) A licensee will obtain the specific MillTailings Radiation Control Act approval of the Commission for the use (UMTRCA) of 1978, as amended. EPA is the nuclide of concern. This would result in situations of differir.g criteria of alternate criteria. The Commission has the authority to set cleanup being applied across essentially the l will make its decision after standards for uranium mills and, based same areas and would be a problem for l consideration of the NRC staffs on that authority, issued regulations in contamination existing both in uranium i recommendations that will address any 40 CFR part 192 which contain mill soils and buildings.
comments provided by the remediation criteria for these facilities. The Commission has considered the Environmental Protection Agency and NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 40 most appropriate means to address l any public comments submitted Appendix A. apply to the requirements for cleanup at uranium regarding the decommissioning or decommissioning of its licensed and thorium mills and ISI.s (collectively license termination plan. facilities and conform to EPA's referred to as UR facilities) for if the license termination conditions standards for uranium mills. At ISLs. unres ricted release of the site other under alternate criteria cannot be met, it the decommissioning activities are than tdlings disposal and reclamation may be necessary for the site (or portion similar to those at uranium mills and subject to the requirements of 10 CFR thereof) to be kept under license to consist mainly of the cleanup of part 40. Appendix A. One way would be ensure that exposures to the public are byproduct material as defined in to include criteria for UR facilities as appropriately monitored. The Section Ile.(2) of the Atomic Energy part of this rulemaking. However, as evaluation of maintenance of a site or a Act of 1954, as amended. noted above there are complexities portion of that site under continued Thus, applicable cleanup standards associated with decommissioning of license is outside the scope of this already exist for soil cleanup of radium these unique facilities which could rulemaking because this rule contains in 10 CFR part 40. Appendix A. cause practical problems in applying the provisions, including radiological Criterion 6(6). Radium is the main standards of this rulemaking to UR criteria, that apply to termination of a contaminant at mills in the large areas facilities. Therefore, the Commission license. (20-400 hectares (50 to 1000 acres) for has decided to exclude UR facilities With regard to the comment on the uranium mills) where windblown from the scope of this rulemaking.
NWPA. It should be noted that Section contamination from the tailings pile has To allow for full consideration by the 151(b) of the NWPA already authorizes occurred, and at ISLs (in holding Commission and affected parties of the ownership by the U.S. Department of ponds). These standards require that the issues associated with decommissioning Energy, if NRC makes certain concentration of radium in those large UR facilities and of the regulatory determinations. Therefore no further areas not exceed the background level options listed above the Commission is leglstation is needed to grant this by more than 0.19 Bq/gm (5 pCi/gm) in publishing a separate notice in this authority. The rule language has been the first 15 cm (6 inches) of soil, and Federal Register reopening the clarified to ensure that this authority 0.56 Bq/gm (15 pCi/gm) for every 15 cm comment period to specifically request may be implemented by NRC and DOE. (6 inches) below the first 15 cm (6 additional comment on the regulatory C.1. 4 Summary of revisions to rule inches). Cleanup of radium to these options for decommissioning criteria for on codifying provisions for certain concentrations would generally result in UR facilities. The Commission is not facilldes. The rule has been modified to doses higher than the unrestricted use reopening the comment period for any include the use of alternate criteria in dose criterion of this rulemaking. other issue discussed in this Federal
39074 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and' Regulations - -
Register notice. In the interim. the numerically similar to the existing low- D.2 Use of EPA Drinking Water Commission will continue its current level waste disposal criteria in 10 CFR Standards in NRC Rule practices for decommissioning UR part 61, the Commission believes that. D 2.1 Comments. A number of facilities. as a whole, the regulations applicable to commenters disagreed with the C.2. 4 Summary o/ rule revisions for low-level waste disposal sites are much inclusion of a separate groundwater uranium / thorium mills. The more restrictive than those applicable to requirement. In response to the specific Commission is excluding uranium / onsite burials. The pathway parameters questions asked, many of these thorium mills from the scope of this on which NUREG-1101 is based may commenters stated that a separate rulemaking and is publishing a separate not be comparable to those used to requirement for groundwater was not notice requesting additional comment define the rule's unrestricted release on the specific standard for license necessary if the rule included an all-criteria. Nevertheless, case-by case pathways standard. A commenter also termination of UR facilities. analysis of the potential radiological noted that application of Maximum C.3 Other Exemptions impacts could indicate that leaving the Contaminant Levels (MCLs) to C.3.1 Comments. Commenters burials in place could be consistent with groundwater was inappropriate because unrestricted or restricted release of the the MCLs of EPA's drinking water suggested certain other exemptions be affected site. For past burials that have spect ically provided for in the rule standards were based on outdated involved long lived nuclides, site- dostmetry (ICRP2) and were applicable if Libsees that possess and hold Specific modeling may alsojustify to public water systems rather than to only sealed sources or limited leaving these burials in place. Thus the groundwater directly. Other Commission sees no reason to commenters supported establishing a quantitles; and specifically exempt these burials from separate groundwater requirement as (2) Rad!oactive waste materials disposed of in accordance wiu NRC consideration under this final rule but being consistent with the EPA standard.
regulations in formerly used 5520.302 w uld continue to require an analysis of D.2.2 Response. As noted in Section and 20.304 because ALARA was applied site specific overall impacts and costs in IV.D.I. the NRC's proposed rule on a site specific basis for these deciding whether or not exhumation of included separate requirements for facilities Previous buried waste is necessary for groundwater protection. The NRC staff Other commenters disagreed and specific sites. In addition, the general has reviewed the pub!!c comments on stated that all such waste must be exemption provisions of 10 CFR part 20 its proposed rule, including the EPA decommissioned. In addition, there are available to consider unique past comments supporting the separate were commenters who stated that burials on a case by-case basis. requirement, has reviewed the bases and exemption procedures should be spelled With regard to specific provisions in rationale for a separate groundwater out the rule for exemptions, the standard, and has conducted further C.J.2 Response. No exemption from Commission is not convinced that a technical analyses of groundwater the rule for sealed source or !!mited significant number of exemptions to the protection in the Final CE!S.
quantity users is necessary. Under unrestricted or restricted use provisions As described in some detail in Section provisions of 10 CFR Parts 30. 40, and of the final rule will be necessary. The IV.A.2.2 there were three broad
- 70. SS 30.36(c)(1)(v). 40.42(c)(1)(v) and Commission believes that the options in considerations that provided the overall 70.38(c)(1)(v). the licensee could this rule for release under alternate rationale for the proposed rule's provide assurance that building or soil criteria and the flexibility contained in contents. The first two considerations contamination has never occurred or the rule including the use of realistic were related to the health and safety demonstrate that the level of radioactive site. specific screening and modeling aspects, and the third was related to cost material contamination in the facility pr vide licensees with sufficient and practicality aspects. As was done in conforms with screening criteria, latitude. Section IV.A.2.2. regarding the With regard to burials, as discussed in D. Groundwater Protection Criteria establishment of unrestricted and the preamble to the proposed rule, the (Proposed Rule 520.1403) restricted dose criteria. this section determination of whether the licensee reexamines these three considerations meets the radiological criteria of the D.! Proposed Rule Content in the context of determining final rule includes consideration of all The proposed rule (520.1403(d)) appropriate groundwater cleanup residual radioactivity at the site. Indicated that a licensee must requirements for decommissioning.
including burials made in conformance demonstrate a reasonable expectation With regard to the first two with 10 CFR part 20 (both existing that residual radioactivity from the site considerations, as described in Section S 20.2002 and formerly used S520.302 will not cause the level of radioactivity IV.A.2.2, above, this final rule contains and 20.304). This is consistent with in groundwater that is a current or acceptable criteria (including the dose prior Commission statements made in potential source of drinking water to criterion for unrestricted use, and the preamble to the 1988 rulemaking on exceed the limits specified in 40 CFR provisions for ALARA. restricted use, general requirements for part 141. This groundwater requirement and alternate site-specific criteria) to decommissioning (53 FR 24018; June would have been in addition to the protect the public from radiation from 27.1988) and in promulgation of the proposed dose criterion for unrestricted all of the pathways that they could be final rule on timeliness of use and was included as part of the exposed to from a decommissioned decommissioning (59 FR 36026; July 15. proposed rule on EPA's facility (e.g.. direct exposure to 1994). More recent past burials (1981 to recommendation. The preamble to the radiation, ingestion of food, inhalation present) were frequently made in proposed rule solicited responses to of dust. and drinking water). The bases conformance with guidelines defined in three specific questions on this used in selecting the dose criterion for "Onsite Disposal of Radioactive Waste." proposal, including whether a separate this final rule are stated in Section NUREG-Il01, Volumes I through 3. standard was appropriate as a IV.A.2.
This guidance was based on a maximum supplement to an overall radiological The dose criterion codified in annual whole body or critical organ dose criterion that applies to all 5 20.1402 of this final rule limits the dose of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem). Although exposure pathways. amount of radiation that a person can Y
Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39075 potentially receive from all possible protected. Nonetheless it is the because this resource can be used in a sources at a decommissioned facility. Commission's position that protection variety of public uses away from the site Therefore. it is an "all pathways" of public health and safety is fully being decommissioned. The Final GEIS standard. Examples of these pathways afforded by limiting exposure to persons draws from NRC's experience and the include: from all potential sources of radioactive public comments regarding (a) Direct exposure to radiation from material by means of a TEDE at a material on the soll surface; contaminated sites. In particular, decommissioned facility. There is, considerations with regard to (b) Eating food grown in the soil and therefore, no compelling reason to groundwater remediation include eating fish from surface waters; impose a separate limit on dose from the potential remediation methods such as (c) Inhalation of dust from soil drinking water pathway, and the rule surfaces; and removal of soil to preclude prospective (d) Drinking water obtained from the has been modified to delete a separate contamination pump and treat groundwater standard. To make clear processes for the cleanup of existing groundwater-Because equivalent doses received NRC's concern over the importance of groundwater contamination. and the protecting this resource as a source of supply of alternate sources of drinking through any pathways of exposure would involve equivalent risks to the potential public exposure. the rule has water, as well as a consideration of person exposed. NRC concludes the also been modified to include a direct administrative costs associated with following with regard to the need to set reference to the groundwater pathway in predicting and measuring levels of the all-pathways unrestricted use dose contaminated groundwater.
a separate standard for groundwater:
(a) There is no reason from the criterion in $ 20.1402. Because of the range of possible In actual situations, based on standpoint of protection of public health operational practices of most nuclear typical parameters, scenarios, and site-specific situations.Section IV.A.2 notes that the and safety to have a separate. Iower dose facilities and on the behavior of analyses in the Final GEIS indicate that criterion for one of the pathways (e g.,
drinking water) as long as, when radionuclides in the environment for there is a wide range of cost-benefit combined, the dose from all the the very large majority of sites, results and there is no unique algorithm pathways doesn't exceed the total dose concentrations of radionuclides in the that is a decisive ALARA result for all groundwater will be well below the facilities. This finding is especially true standard established in the rule; (b) A standard imposed on a single dose criterion of this f nal rule and for groundwater contamination where would be either below or only the behavior of radionuclides in soil and pathway. such as drinking water, may marginally above the MCLs codified in have been appropriate in the past for in the aquifer is highly site-specific; site cleanups when a dose-based 40 CFR Part 141 as referenced in the much more so than in concrete. The proposed NRC rule. For example, results of the overall considerations of standard for decommissioning did not because the large majority of NRC Section IV.A.2 for all pathways would exist. It may also be appropriate for licensees either use sealed sources or be applicable to the groundwater chemical contamination when no total limit on exposure exists. However, have very short. lived radionuclides. It is component. As pointed out in Section l highly unlikely that contamination from IV.A.2.3.2. It is intended that the !
NRC's final rule on decommissioning these facilities would reach the would issue an overall TEDE criterion regulatory guidance to be developed to I groundwater. Even for facilities like support the final rule will provide I for all radionuclides combined and for reactors or certain industrial facilities. guidance on these considerations.
l all pathways of exposure combined, whose major contaminants are relatively Although preparation of this guidance is including drinking water, thus removin8 short lived nuclides like Co-60 or Cs- in a preliminary stage, it is anticipated the need for a single-pathway standard 137 the migration of these nuclides that this Euldance would likely indicate i for groundwater. This is a more uniform through soil is so slow that it precludes that reducing doses to values less than method for protecting public health and groundwater contamination of any safety than was contained in NRC's the dose criterion of 0.25 mSv (25 l significance. In addition. It is not mrem /y) is generally not likely to be
- proposed rule that set separate anticipated that decommissioned cost effective when evaluated using l requirements using the MCLs contained nuclear facilities will be located near NRC's regulatory analysis framework in 40 CFR part 141. This is because the enough to public water treatment presented in NUREG/BR-0058 and MCL requirements do not cover all facilities so that treatment facilities NUREG-1530. although there may be radionuclides and do not provide a would be affected by the potential ALARA considerations for sites with a consistent risk standard for different groundwater contamination from relatively large population obtaining all radionuclides as will be provided by decommissioned facilities. their drinking water from the site adoption of a single dose criterion in the As further described in Section plume.
final rule. In addition, the MCLs are IV.A.2. the Commission is basing its D.2.3 Summary ofrule revisions on based on a modeling approach that has decision on analyses in the Final GEIS. groundwater and plans for not been updated to reflect current that consider cost and practicality implementation. Based on the above, understandings of the uptake and doses factors, to provide additional the Commission concludes that result'.ng from ingestion of information regarding decisions on application of a separate groundwater radionuclides through drinking water. Issues such as achieving ALARA levels protection ilmit, in addition to the all The Commission agrees with the below the dose criterion of S20.1402 pathways dose limit. is not necessary or commenters that exposures from and allowing restricted use. These justified and has deleted this drinking contaminated groundwater analyses also consider how these issues requirement from its final rule.
need to be controlled: with the EPA's relate to groundwater cleanup. As noted above, regulatory guidance Broundwater protection pririciples including how, and to what level. to be prepared in support of the final contained in the document " Protecting ALARA efforts should be made, and if, rule will likely describe site-specific the Nation's Groundwater: EPA Strategy and in what manner, restrictions on use conditions under which an ALARA for the 1990's." 212-1024 Ouly 1991); should be considered. The analysis of analysis could identify the need to and with the EPA position that the impacts to populations and the cost of consider reducing the dose below the environmental integrity of the nation's remediating those impacts is unrestricted use dose criterion (e.g groundwater resources needs to be particularly important for groundwater large existing population deriving its
39076 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations drinking water from a downstream participate effectively in all entitled " Decommissioning of Nuclear supply using a downstream plume), decommissioning cases, notJust those Power Reactors" that was published on related to SSABs. Other specific July 29.1996 (61 FR 39278), the E. Public Participation (Proposed Rule comments addressed the type and Commission has held public meetings 5520.1406 and 20.1407) timing of the notification. meetings to be and informal hearings for plants E.1 Proposed Rule Content held, who should bear the cost of public undergoing decommissioning. even participation the availability of licensee though limited formal requirements The proposed rule included a general documents. NRC's role, and the need for exist for this type of involvement. To requirement in S 201406(a) that upon codify those activities, that rule requires exemptions.
receipt of a decommissioning plan or E.2.2 Response. A variety of a public meeting to be held at the time proposal for restricted use from a comments have been provided on this of submittal of a reactor licensee's Post-
!!censee, the NRC must notify and issue during all phases of this Shutdown Decommissioning Activities solicit comments from local and State rulemaking from the earliest workshops Report (PSDAR) and requires that this governments and Indian nations in the through comments on the NRC staff meeting be noticed in a local public vicinity of the site and publish a notice draft rule (February 2.1994: 59 FR 4868) forum and held in the vicinity of the in a forum that is readily accessible to and the proposed rule, and in a facility. The PSDAR must also be made persons in the site vicinity to solicit workshop on public participation available for public review and comments from affected parties. aspects of the rule held in December comment. In addition, a licensee is The proposed rule also contained 1994. Comments provided in these required to hold a public meeting on the additional requirements, in forums have been similar to those noted License Termination Plan (LTP), that for SS 20.1406(b) and 20.1407. for above. A common theme of the power reactors now replaces the decommissionings when the licensee December 1994 workshop was that there decommissioning plan, in the vicinity of does not propose to achieve unrestricted are many approaches for involving the the facility following notice of the release (i.e.. Instead restrict site use after public in the decommissioning process. meeting in a local public forum. The license termination). In those cases, the Participants generally favored LTP is also required to be made licensee would be required to convene exploration of site-specific alternatives available for public comment with full a site specific advisory board (SSAB) for as opposed to generally mandated hearing rights under Subpart G or L of the purpose of obtaining advice from processes, like SSABs. Many 10 CFR 2.1201, depending on the affected parties on the commenters suggested that there was disposition of the spent fuel, decommissioning. The Commission merit to having a public participation Similarly, for materials facilities envisioned that the advice obtained plan developed by the licensee in involving significant decommissioning would address issues as to whether: cooperation with interested parties so efforts. the Commission has (a) There are ways to achieve the public's participation could be implemented efforts to inform and unrestricted release that would not be tailored to the needs of the community involve'the public in the process. These prohibitively expensive or cause net and the licensee, efforts were intended to provide early public or environmental harm: The Commission agrees that public and meaningful opportunities for public (b) Institutional controls proposed by participation can be an important involvement in the decommissioning the licensee will provide reasonable component for informing and involving process. For example, the NRC staff has assurance that the TEDE does not the public. The Commission recognizes initiated public information meetings at exceed the dose criterion, will be the potential benefit for all the Parks Township shallow land enforceable, and will not impose an decommissionings and site releases of disposal area and the Sequoyah Fuels undue burden on affected parties; and significant community concern to keep Corporation facility and conducted (c) There is sufficient financial the public informed and educated about public information roundtables at assurance to maintain the institutional the status of decommissioning at a various sites. Stakeholder controls. particular site and to elicit public representatives are routinely invited to Public comments received on the concerns about the decommissioning participate in roundtable discussions general requirements related to process at that site. Based on the and information exchanges on the status notification and solicitation are comrnents received and on a and issues associated with the discussed in Section IV.E.2. Comments consideration of current Commission decommissioning project. These received on the additional requirements practices, the general provisions in initiatives are consistent with the NRC on public participation for restricted use 5 20.1405 that provide for notification of staff's public responsiveness plan in are discussed in Section IV.E 3. the public and government entitles and NUREG/BR-0199. Where appropriate.
E.2 General Requirements on s licitati n f c mment have not been the Commission plans to use these m dified although a specific reference public involvement mechanisms and Notification and Solicitation of Comments (Proposed Rule 520.1406(a))
t n tifying and soliciting comments other public information meetings and from the EPA has been added to involvement efforts, such as community E.2.1 Comments. Several S 20.1405. The reason that the general information boards, at other facilities in commenters supported the public provisions of 5 20.1405(a) have not been the future on a site specific basis to notification requirements in proposed modified in response to the public address specific needs that exist in S 20.1406(a). Other commenters stated comments received is because existing affected communities.
that the proposed notification Commission policies and practices. Based on these considerations, requirements exceeded requirements of coupled with the provisions of this rule current practices and procedures and the Administrative Procedures Act and a recent rulemaking on power existing rule provisions are appropriate (APA) and that NRC has not reactor decommissioning, appear to provide for public participation in the demonstrated a health and safety need reasonable by providing for public decommissioning and license for these requirements. Suggestions for participation in the decommissioning termination process and to provide public participation offeren by some and site release process. Specifically in sufficient flexibility to accommodate commenters included that the public the case of power reactors. as is noted different situations, and therefore the not only be informed but be I ble to in the preamble to the separate final rule general requirements of $20.1405 on
l '
I Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39077 I
notification and solicitation of uould be needed, that a need for SSABs appropriate into the LTP or j comrnents have been retained. Sections has not been demonstrated; and that decommissioning plan before the plan is l 20.1405 (a) and (b) provide for the SSABs are inconsistent with Federal notification of specific government submitted to the NRC for review. The Advisory Committce Act. licensee is the appropriate entity to entities and the public in the vicinity of Administrative Procedures Act, and accomplish this.
the site when a licensee submits a LTP Atomic Energy Act requirements. In considering a requirement to or decommissioning plan for any of the Commenters suggested alternatives to convene a SSAB or similar group. the
!! cense termination approaches mandatory SSABs. such as addressing Commission has considered alternatives described in Section IV.A.2.3 or the need for a board in a public regarding the most effective way to specifically proposes to use restricted participation plan or providing more ensure that the licensee considers the use (see Section IV.B) or alternate flexibility in deciding when to use diversity of views in the community.
criteria (see Section IV.C). The NRC will SSABs. Some commenters indicated Small group discussions can be a more review public comments gathered by the that use of SSABs should be extended effective mechanism than written licensee prior to final NRC actions on to the unrestricted use of sites. comments or large public meetings for the licensee's request for license E.3.2 Response. One of the major articulating the exact nature of termination. A specific reference has issues raised by the comments and in community concerns, determining how been added in 5 20.1405(a) to provide the workshop discussions on the SSAB much agreement or disagreement there for specific notification and solicitation was the advisability of mandating a is on a particular issue, and facilitating of comment from EPA where the specific public involvement mechanism the development of acceptable solutions licensee proposes to use alternate such as a SSAB as opposed to to issues. Also, the type of close criteria. To the extent that EPA has an establishing broad performance criteria interaction resulting from a small group interen in commenting on proposed that would allow the licensee flexibility discussion could serve the licensee well decommissionings other than those in selecting the appropriate public in developing a credible relationship under alternate criteria. EPA comments involvement mechanism for a particular with the community in which it is would be considered under the general site. There was general agreement that operating.
notice and comment provisions of flexibility was always desirable, in Use of public participation methods is 520.1405. establishing meaningful performance consistent with a variety of initiatives Specific additional requirements for criteria. However, it should be being undertaken both within NRC and public participation in cases where emphasized that some of those who at other Federal agencies regarding restricted use or alternate criteria are supported the use of performance stakeholder involvement in the proposed by a licensee are discussed criteria did so only in the context of the decommissioning process. Examples of further in Section IV.E.3. expansion of the scope of licensee community involvement at NRC-E.2.3 Summary of rule revisions on public involvement requirements, licensed sites being decommissioned general requirements on public including an SSAB, to cover facilities under the SDMP are described above in participation and notifications. No beyond the restricted use category. An Section IV.E.2.2. Similarly, several ;
overall changes were made to the additional issue of concern to Federal agencies (including EPA. DOE. j provisions for public notification in the commenters was whether it was more the Department of Defense (DOD)) that 1 final rule. except to include specific appropriate for the licensee to establish make up the Federal Facilities reference to notifying and soliciting !
the SSAB as contemplated by the Environmental Restoration Dialogue comments from the EPA where the proposed rule, or whether the l Committee,in their evaluation of the licensee proposes to use alternate Commission should establish the SSAB. cleanup of Federal facilities, have criteria for license termination. The resolution of this issue depends not prepared a set of " Principles for only on the objectives that the Environmental Cleanup of Federal ubli Pa t ipat on In lud g those Commission believes will be served by Facilities." dated August 2.1995.
for Restricted Use, for Alternate Criteria, an SSAB. but also on what the Principle No.14 notes the need for and for Use of SSABs) (Proposed Rule Commission s broader responsibilities agencies to provide for involvement of 5 20.1406(b))
are in the public involvement area. This, public stakeholders from affected in turn. relates to another issue raised communities in facility cleanup E.3.J Comments. Comments were by the commenters: the scope and decisionmaking. It also notes that rather specifically submitted on the duration of a SSAB's responsibilities. than being an impediment, meaningful requirement in 5 20.1406(b) for the use in proposing a requirement for stakeholder involvement has. In many of SSABs. These comments were obtaining advice from affected parties instances, resulted in significant submitted both in response to the on restricted use the Comminion's cleanup cost reductions.
proposed rule, as well as in connection objective is to involve diverse The Commission envisions that a with the NRC workshop on SSABs held community interests directly with the process for obtaining advice from on December 6-8.1994 (see NUREC/ licensee in the development of the LTP affected interests would provide the CR-6307 for a summary of the or decommissioning plan for a proposed opportunity for public involvement in wc,rkshop). restricted use decommissioning. the important issues related to restricted Some commenters supported the Community concerns, as well as use of a site similar to those described proposed requirement in 520.1406(b) community-based knowledge on the in Section IV.E.2.2. In particular, one of that would require licensees to convene appropriate selection of instituticnal the important issues would likely be the a SSAB for restricted release of a site. controls, risk issues. and economic unavailability of the site for full Other commenters objected to the use of development, can be potentially useful unrestricted public use. In its a SSAB in each case involving a in the development of the LTP or deliberations on the rule. the i !
restricted release of a site. These decommissioning plan. For Commission Commission ha envisioned that the commenters expressed concern that use and licensee resources to be used !
following should occur: 1 of SSABs was inconsistent with the efficiently, the Commission believes (1) The licensee would present timeliness rule or that exemptions or that this type of information should be information to, and seek advice from.
other relief from the timeliness rule considered and incorporated as affected parties on the provisions for I
~
39078 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations '
limiting the dose to meet the criteria in rationale for how use of restrictions can affected parties to be considered and the rule (e g . limiting use to eliminate exposure pathways (e.g., for will allow licensees additional commercial / industrial use with uranium, elimination of the resident flexibility in determining the best elimination of the resident pathway), farmer pathway greatly reduces the dose methods for obtaining that advice based how the restrictions would be enforced because most of the dose received from on site-specific considerations. For (e.g., use of deed restrictions, uranium is through the agricultural example, there may be situations where engineered barriers. State or Federal pathway): the nature of the institutional the creation of a SSAB may not be control or ownership). the effect on the controls expected to restrict use over appropriate as in cases where an community, and the adequacy of the extended time periods (e.g.. deed existing organization is already in place level of financial assurance (e.g.. restrictions, engineered barriers such as to assume this role, or where it is clear sufficient funds for maintenance of the fencing. restricted cells, etc., and/or that the community is willing to rely on deed or of fencing). In seeking such government control of the restricted local government institutions to interact advice, a broad cross section of the area); and other special provisions such with the licensee. Appropriate affected parties In the community as periodic rechecks of the restricted mechanisms for seeking advice from would be involved and there would be area and the continued effectiveness of affected parties could include a public opportunity for a comprehensive institutional controls (see Section meeting or series of meetings a specific discussion of the issues by those parties. IV.B.3). As discussed previously in process for obtaining written or The information presented would be Section IV.E.2.2. because community computerized public comment by similar to that which the rule would involvement already exists either internet or web site means, or by require the licensee to prepare and formally or informally at a number of convening small groups such as a SSAB.
submit to NRC to demonstrate the complex sites. this provision would not Any of these processes would result in appropriateness and safety aspects of change the situation at these sites an opportunity for a compraensive.
the restrictions on site use, significantly. collective discussion e - . .as by the As an example, in the specific case (2) Following solicitation of advice affected parties. All c' + .o aches where the nuclides involved are from affected parties, the licensee will have been used in pi 1 relatively short-!!ved (e.g.. Co-60 and include the recommendations from decommissionings.
Cs 137), as discussed in Section IV.B.3. these parties in the LTP or To ensure that there will ccw.ue to calculations could demonstrate that it is decommissioning plan and indicate be significant opportunity foi .blic preferable to restrict use of the site for how those recommendations were involvement in the decommtaloning a finite time period to allow for addressed along with the technical basis process. the modified final rule has radioactive decay than it is to ship large for addressing them. The technical basis retained the principal objectives of an quantitles of soll. Them calculations for dealing with the recommendations SSAB from 520.1407 of the proposed would also show the length of time that would presumably derive from the rule, namely that a licensee seeking the restrictions would need to remain in presentation made to the affected parties community advice on the proposed force to allow for radioactive decay to described above and is the type of restricted use will provide for: (1) reduce residual levels below the analysis that would be necessary to Participation by representatives of a unrestricted dose criterion. In addition, demonstrate to the NRC the broad cross section of community these calculations could show that acceptability of restricted use interests who may be affected by the restricting the site to industrial use provisions. decommissioning: (2) an opportunity for through deed restrictions during this Based on the above. It appears a comprehensive, collective discussion time period would eliminate or decrease reasonable to retain the requirement for on the issues by the participants certain pathways and limit the dose to sites to seek advice from individuals represented: and (3) a publicly available less than the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) and institutions in the community who summary of the results of all such dose criteria in the rule. Finally such an may be affected by the decommissioning discussions including a description of analysis could indicate that continued where restricted use is proposed. In the individual viewpoints of the use of the site for an industrial purpose retaining this requirement, the participants on the issues and the extent similar to its currently existing use Commission has decided to modify the of agreement and disagreement among should not adversely impact the rule to include general provisions that the participants on the issues.
community. Consideration of require that such advice be sought on Advice sought from affected parties in community advice on appropriate the fundamental performance objective the manner noted above would be institutional controls for controlling of institutional controls, namely that considered in development of the LTP access to the site during this decay they function to provide reasonable or decommissioning plan. and the NRC period would provide the licensee with assurance that the TEDE does not will review public comments gathered useful information in developing the exceed the dose criteria of the rule. that by the licensee prior to final NRC action necessary institutional controls. As part they are enforceable, and that they will on the licensee's request for license of the process of public participation. not impose undue burdens on the local termination.
the licensee would make public a community.This general provision As discussed in Section IV.C. the summary of the advice received and the replaces the specific reference contained Commission included requirements for results of the discussions on that advice. In the proposed rule (520.1406(b)) that consideration of alternate criteria for For more complex cases where large advice must be obtained by convening certain difficult sites because inclusion volumes of uranium / thorium a SSAB. The rationale for this of such requirements is preferable to contamination would remain under a modification derives from the having these facilities apply for form of restricted use the lo'ng lived discussion above on site flexibility, exemptions. To ensure that there is full nature of these nuclides would result in protecting public health and safety, and public participation in any decision the restrictions having to remain in ensuring community involvement. regarding such sites, licensees will be force in the community for a long period Specifically, it is anticipated that these required to seek advice regarding this of time. The information presented by requirements will contain the beneficial approach from affected parties in the the licensee would be similar to that for provisions of ensuring timely and same manner as described above for shorter lived nuclides, including the meaningful opportunity for advice from restricted use and described in detail in j
1 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39079 Section IV.C.3. In addition, use of the licensee. .ne commenter stated that SDMP sites for example the Cushing alternate criteria will only be considered the SSAB would be unique as presently site.
by the Commission after review of the proposed because it does not appear to E.4.3 Summary of rule revisions on NRC staff's recommendations that fully be accountable to its employer. fenctioning ofSSABs. As noted in address any comments provided by the Comments were received regarding how Sections E.3.2 and E.4.2 above the public and EPA regarding the SSAB costs would be contained and principal objectives of SSABs have been i
i decommissioning or license termination how they would be paid, including retained in 5 20.1403(d) which replaces i l
P an. costs of technical consultants to the the detailed provisions in proposed E.3.3 Summary of rule revisions on SSAB or independent SSAB labs and S 20.1407 (b) through (f) of the proposed
)
SSABs. Specific text referring to SSABs experts. I has been replaced with a requirement rule. The guidarte that the NRC (4) With regard to SSAB meetings and develops to implement the final rule that licensees seek community records, comments were provided will include additional guidance on involvement and advice on any plans for restricted use or alternate criteria for concerning frequency, advertisement seeking advice from affected parties.
decommissioning through a variety of and openness of meetings, and access to including establishing and using SSABs.
licensee official documents, both those methods. This requirement includes # # #" # #
that are part of the public docket and provisions for specifically how that those that contain proprietary or other f3#
advice is to be sought and documented in the LTP or decommissioning plan. confidential information: F.1 State and NRC Compatibility Regulatory guidance is planned which (5) With regard to use of SSAB results.
F.1.1 Comments. Some commenters will include criteria for establishing and c mments were received concerning the stated that States should have the using the processes for seeking such actions expected to be taken by the authority to demand stricter radiation advice, including esta'olishing SSABs. I censee and the NRC on the advice or protection standards than the Federal and for delineating those situations in c mments of the SSAB.These actions Government. Some commenters which an SSAB may not be appropriate. Include a licensee,s analysis of SSAB recommended that States not be allowed The guidance will discuss that the rec mmendations, the need to obtain to set less strict conditions. Other expected starting point in providing an the SSAB s consensus on aspects of the commenters stated that radiological opportunity for public involvement is decommissioning plan, and the effect on criteria should be an area of strict the establishment of an SSAB; however, time restraints f submitting a compatibility and States should not be the provisions of the rule provide decommissioning plan reconciling permitted to impose more stringent licensees the flexibility to use other SSAB advice. standards. Specific comments raised approaches where appropriate. E.4.2 Response. Based on the included questions as to which standard discussion in Section IV.E.3.2 regarding would apply if there was a conflict.
E.4 Specific Questions on Functioning the need to explore site-specific whether a State would need NRC of SSABs alternatives as opposed io generally approval to require more strict E.4.1 Comments. A number of mandated SSABs. the rule contains standards, application of ALARA comments were received on the broad provisions for obtaining provisions. who should pay for costs if ;
functioning of SSABs including their community advice and more strict State standards are applied. l responsibilities. membership, recommendations through such bodies. exemptions, and grandfathering l independence and support meetings. The purpose of the requirements on provisions similar to those in Section and results, public involvement is to obtain IV.F.2.
(1) Some commenters recommi.nded meaningful public input into F.1.2 Response.The proposed rule that SSABs should be given Preparation of the plan for did not propose a compatibility responsibilities beyond those specified decommissioning the site when determination because the Commission in proposed $ 20.1407(a). Other restrictions on future use or proposals was in the process of developing a commenters stated that the rule should for alternate criteria are planned. To compatibility policy. Instead. comments restrict SSAB activities to a specific allow for flexibility.Section IV.E.3.2 were requested on compatibility and the mission which is advisory only and indicates that the final rule has been comments received were divided on this nontechnical. modified to establish general issue.
(2) With regard to membership in requirements for obtaining such advice The current compatibility policy SSABs. a number of comments while retaining the principal objectives categorizes rules into four " divisions."
recommended specifically how the of an SSAB from S20.1407(b)-(f) of the Division I rules are those that SSAB and its membership should be proposed rule. The details, such as Agreement States must adopt, constituted. Some commenters stated specific issues of size. membership, essentially verbatim. Into their that many of the proposed SSAB issues responsibilities, administration, regulations. These rules include that are listed appear to require meetings, and records requested in these provisions that form the basic language specialized expertise that members of comments are more appropriately of radiation protection and include the general public might not have. Some contained in regulatory guidance. With technical definitions and basic radiation commenters questioned whether NRC regard to issues of funding public protection standards such as public and other Government agencies should involvement, reasonable efforts towards dose limits, occupational exposure be prohibited from participating in obtaining advice from affected parties limits and effluent release limits.
SSABs because of cnnflict of interest should be undertaken by the licensee. Division 2 rules address basic principles questions. Other commenters stated that such as sponsoring and holding of radiation safety and regulatory the NRC should be officially represented community meetings and distributing functions. Although Agreement States on the SSAB. information at those meetings regarding must address these principles in their (3) With regard to independence of the rationale for and nature of the regulations. the use of language and support for SSABs. some comments restricted use. Examples of these identical to that in NRC rules is not received stated that an SSAB should be meetings are those held for reactor necessaryif the underlying principles selected and operated independently of facilities and those held for several are the same. Also, the Agteement States
~
39080 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday, July 21, 1997 / Rules and*Regulallons may adopt requirements more stringent the final stages of preparation or of NRC required for the Commission to issue a than NRC rules. review. From a health and safety record of decision.
Because the dose criterion in the rule perspective, the NRC believes the In submitting the decommissioning is not a " standard" in the sense of the criteria identified in the SDMP Action plan for the licensed activities that are public dose !!mits of 10 CFR part 20 but Plan are reasonably consistent with the to cease on portions of sites, the licensee is a constraint within the public dose final rule's dose criteria. The limit that provides a sufficient and must identif Ythe areas associated with contamination levels defined in the the ceased operations. These areas must ample margin of safety below the limit. SDMP Action Plan are within the range it is reasonable that the rule would be be remediated to achieve acceptable of measurable values that could be a Division 2 level of compatibility under derived through the site-specific radiological criteria for release, either the current policy. This means the screening and modeling approaches those in the final rule or previous Agreement States would be required to defined in guidance supporting this acceptance criteria that would achieve adopt the regulation but would have final rule. The Commission believes the comparable protection as the criteria in significant flexibility in language, and grandfathering approach will facilitate the final rule. The area for continuing would be allowed to adopt more the timeliness of decommissioning and licensed operations could continue to stringent requirements. ensure licensees that resources spent to contain radioactivity above the The Commission has not yet approved develop and implement a radiologic.al criteria. When the a new final policy on compatibility that decommissioning plan arejustified. continuing operations cease, the revises the current policy, although it is With regard to criteria other than the radiological criteria of the final rule currently considering the implementing SDMP Action Plan. the grandfathering would then be required to be met for the procedures for this policy (SECY provision in the proposed rule was portion of the site for which operations 213 dated October 3.1996). Until the conditioned on the license being had most recently ceased. The decision new policy becomes effective. NRC will terminated in accordance with the on grandfathering previously released continue to apply the current criteria identified in the SDMP Action portions of the site depends on whether Agreement State compatibility policy. Plan, because those criteria are the criteria previously used are still F.2. Grandfathering Sites With consistent with the final rule. However, acceptable (e.g., part of the SDMP Previously Approved Plans (Proposed the gendfathering provision does not Action Plan) and whether it can be Rule 20.1401(b)) extend to at:y former decommissioning demonstrated that these areas have not F.2.1 Proposed rule contents. actions in general because that would been affected by the continued Section 20.1401(b) of the proposed rule n t Provide assurance that such actions operations. NRC intends to develop indicated that the criteria do not apply were adequate to protect the public. As comprehensive guidance on how to sites already covered by a part of its overall upgrading of its licensees should address previously decomm!.tsioning plan approved by the oversight of decommissioning actions, released portions of licensed sites in Commission before the effective date of NRC has conducted a systematic review demonstrating compliance with the the final rule and in accordance with f a large number oflicense dose criteria.
the criteria identified in the SDMP terminations to identify sites with l
significant contamination and has Not all licensees are required to Action Plan of April 16* 1992 (57 FR submit decommissioning plans, and identified a number of sites warranting 13389)' instead, may submit appropriate F.2.2 Comments. Some commenters additional NRC attention. Broadening supported the provision of the grandfathering exclusion in the rule documentation including a report of the would not be consistent with the results of the radiation survey of the grandfathering sites covered by a decommissioning plan approved by the objectives of this comprehensive agency premises (see for example.10 CFR Commission (and suggested extending it review and is not supported by existing 30.36). Because the rationale discussed to plans under review) because it is information and experience. above applies in general to all facilities.
consistent with previous NRC The NRC staff anticipates that these grandfathering provisions apply to statements in the SDMP Action Plan. grandfathering would occur as follows: alllicensees, independent of the type of Some commenters suggested that (1) Licensees would have up to 12 documentation for license termination criteria other than those in the SDMP months after the effective date of the that has received NRC approval.
Action Plan should also be used for rule to submit sufficient LTPs or An aspect of grandfathering is those grandfathering. Other commenters decommissioning plans (if required) in sites that were not previously licensed opposed grandfathering because criteria accordance with the SDMP Action Plan but are discovered to have radioactivity used in those cases would be different criteria: levels that are licensable or are in excess than those in the rule. (2) The NRC staff would have up to of the levels presented here as Commenters recommended that the 24 months after the effective date of the appropriate for unrestricted site use.
rule address how the criteria would rule to approve those plans: These cases have arisen as part of the apply to portions of sites. Some (3) Any plan submitted after 12 SDMP and are described in NUREG-commenters recommended that the months or approved af
- r 24 months of 1444. It is intended that the criteria of grandfathering provision cover an NRC. the effective date would have to be this rule will also apply, as appropriate, approved decommissioning plan even if consistent with the new rule; and (4) There would be provisions for day to residual radioactivity at sites that it F.2.3 is for aesponse.The bortion ofCommission a site. were n t previously licensed.
for-day extension if an EIS is required continues to believe that sitis being in the submittal; i.e., if development of F.2.4 Summary o/ rule revisions on decommissioned under previously an EIS is required before NRC can reach grandfathering.The final rule has approved decommissioning plans a decision regarding the retained the grandfathering provision.
should be grandfathered from the decommissioning. then the 12. month However, it has been modified to provisions of the final rule. Similarly window for submitting an LTP or include facilities whose plans are in tne provisions should apply to licensees decommissioning plan would be final stages of decommissioning plan whose decommissioning plans are in extended by the same number of days preparation and decision.
l j
I ,
Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday, July 21. 1997 / Rules and Eegulations 39081 F.3 Finality of Decommissioning and not require specific definition or rule a 0.25 mSv/y '25 mrem /y) dose Future Site Reopening (Proposed Rule clarification. The reason lies in the fact criterion which woual apply to all S 20.1401(c)) that under the provisions of the rule, a exposure pathways including F.3.1 Proposed rule contents. licensee is allowed to demonstrate groundwater, an alternate criteria Proposed 5 20.1401(c) stated that after a C mPliance with the dose criteria provision for certain difficult cases to site has been decommissioned and the through use of several screening and reduce the need for requests for license terminated in accord with the m deling approaches. Each approach l
has a g c exemptions, and provisions for criteria of the proposed rule, the er a sm assoc l , substantive participation by the public.
I Commission will require additional ,
including EPA.
level of a contaminant in the
'#"$to f rn it er ined hat residual envir nment t the final rule's dose As described in some detail in radioactivity remaining at the site could criteri n. Because of the surveys Sections IV.A-IV.E. the Commission
' result in significant public risk. required of the licensee and believes that the overall approach to F.3.2 Comments. Some commenters c niinnatory sumys routinely license termination in this final rule stated that decommissioning a nuclear Performed by NRC the chances of (that includes unrestricted and j facility and releasing a site should be Previously unidentified contamination restricted use dose criteria, alternate accomplished as a final regulatory being discovered would be expet.ted to criteria, and ALARA considerations) l action unless new information indicates be small. Also, contamination that protects public health and safety, and there is a significant health and safety w uld pose a significant public risk that the approach to drinking water risk and net benefit to future cleanup. above the levels implied by the dose protection in the final rule provides an l These commenters cited financial crit"I n is expected to be smaller still. appropriate and more consistent level of reasonableness. the low risk associated Protection of public health and safety with the criteria, and the incentive to stud e 1 ea t t conclu to t at an use n amon, as is complete decommissioning. Other an increased risk associated with a given exposure to radiation exists. further described in those sections. It is commenters stated that they did not Although such an increase can occur as anticipated that in the large majority of agree that these actions should be final situations the combination of ALARA indicated by the continuing studies of and that the site should be cleaned up Japanese atomic bomb survivors, the c nsiderations, the nature of the to account for mistakes, discovery of Commission believes that demographic concrete and soll removal processes. the contamination, or new health findings. studies of populations exposed to use of restrictions on site use where it was noted that the terms "significant differing background exposure levels appropriate, and the effects of public risk" and "new information" provide a defensible bound on the radionuclide decay and transport used in proposed S 20.1401(c) needed to magnitude of any increase in the dose mechanisms in the environment will be explained and appropriately defined- to risk conversion factor. Taken alone, result in the large majority of NRC F.3.3 Response.The wording of final any such increase would not be licensees meeting the criteria preferred l 5 20.1401(c) states that the Commission expected to affect finality decisions.
by EPA. Those sections also clearly will require additional cleanup only if. Thus, because any challenge to indicate that alternate criteria will be based on new information. It determines finality is likely to involve some confined to rare situations and require that residual radioactivity remaining at unexpected combination of factors. the specific Commission approval of the the site could result in significant public Commission believes that attempting to license termination in those cases. In risk. The low level of estimated risk specifically define what constitutes associated with the final rule s dose addition, the Commission believes that "new information" or "significant the provisions of the final rule as criteria, coupled with the conservatisms public risk" is ill advised because the in the methodologies that convert these determination would be made on a case- described in Section IV.E provide for a dose criteria to levels of measurable by. case basis. substantive level of public involvement contamination in the environment. As noted in Sections IV.A and IV.D. In the decommissioning process.
should minirnize the likelihood that there are issues that have been raised by Thus the Commission believes that new information. including errors EPA regarding the acceptability of the the criteria of this final rule provides during the decommissioning processes, unrestricted dose criterion as well as the protection comparable to that preferred would significantly impact the inclusion of a separate groundwater by EPA and that therefore it would be protection of public health and safety or standard. These issues were raised reasonable for EPA to find NRC's rule the environment. during t12 public comment period as sufficiently protective.
The Commission believes the well as during a public meeting held fundamental reason for requiring April 21.1997 to explore differences Licensees should be aware that if they additional cleanup would hinge on the between NRC and EPA on certain issues terminate a license using the criteria of public risk associated with the in the final rule. As noted in those this rule. there is some potential that the romaining radioactivity at the site. The sections. EPA has indicated that it license termination may be revisited as existence of additional contamination or preferred a 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem /y) Part of an EPA proceeding although noncompliance with the TEDE dose criterion for unrestricted use such an action would not seem decommissioning plan at a level in and inclusion of a separate groundwater reasonable for the same reasons that site excess of the dose criteria but less than standard as were proposed in NRC's cleanups noted above would not be the public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 proposed rule. At the April 21.1997 revisited, i.e., it is not believed that would not, by themselves. b'e sufficient meeting. EPA also indicated that it had significant public risk would be to invalidate the finality provision. concerns with inclusion of alternate determined to exist.
Therefore, the wording of S 20.1401(c) criteria and with certain public F.3. 4 Summary o/ rule revisions on captures the fundamental issue. participation aspects of the rule. For the finality. Based on this discussion, the The Commission believes the terms reasons described in some detail in "significant public risk" and "new rule has not been changed with regard Sections IV.A. IV.C. IV.D. and IV.E. the to the finality issue.
Information." as used in $ 20.1401(c). do Commission has included in the final
39082 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday, July 21. 1997 / Rules and' Regulations F.4 Minimization of Contamination including renewals, to minimize regarding "readily removablC' has been (Proposed Rule SS 20.1401(d) and contamination. Specific minimization deleted from the final rule.
20.1408) requirements contained in the proposed F.6 Separate Standard for Radon F4i Proposed rule contents. rule are directed towards those making app cation for a new license because it F6.1 Proposed rule contents.
Proposed $ 20.1401(d) indicated that Proposed S 20.1404(a) did not contain a applicants for licenses, other than is more likely that consideration of separate standard for radon.
renewals would be required to describe design and operational aspects that F. 6.2 Comments. Some commenters in the application process how facility would reduce dose and minimize waste can be cost-effective at that time indicated that the rule should design and procedures for operation will minimize contamination of the compared to such considerations during specifically include reference to radon the license renewag stage where the whereas other commenters stated that facility and the environment, facilitate eventual decommissioning. and existing design and previous operations the rule should not include standards
"' ' f stralnts T for radon or expressed concerns about minimize the generation of radioactive the complications introduced by these waste. C M c , e eve that considerations and the fact that F.4.2 Comments. Some commenters the emphasis should continue to be back round radon levels are so high' recommended that the requirements for directed at such new designs and, g}3 Response. Radon is a describing facility design and therefore. the requirement for radioactive gas formed by the procedures for waste minimization rninimization has been retained as radioactive decay of radium. Radium is should apply to all license applicants Proposed.
a member of the naturally occurring and not only to app!! cants for new F.4.4 Summary ofrule revisions on uranium-238 radioactive decay chain.
licenses. One commenter recommended minimization orcontamination.The Radionuclides from this decay chain are that the rule remain as proposed and not requirement in the proposed rule for found in natural background in various apply to renewal licenses. Imposition of the requirement on '
concentrations in most soils and rocks.
F. 4.3 Response.The intent of this applicants for new licenses has been Estimation of radon dose is a provision is to emphasize to a license retained in the final rule in S20.1406 consideration for this rulemaking only appilcant the importance. In an early but has not been further extended. at those very few facilities which have stage of planning, for facllities to be F.5 Provisions for Readily Removable been contaminated with radium as a designed and operated in a way that Residual Radioactivity result of licensed activities.
would minimize the amount of Following the approach taken in the
! radioactive contamination generated at F.5.1 Proposed rule contents. proposed rule. this final rule includes
( the site during its operating lifetime and Proposed S 20.1403(c) indicated that radiological criteria for residual would minimize the generation of licensees are to take reasonable steps to radioactivity that is distinguishable radioactive waste during remove all readily removable residual from background. Because of natural decontamination. Applicants and radioactivity from the site- transport of radon gas in outdoor areas entsting licensees. including those F.5.2 Comments. Some commenters due to diffusion and air currents, doses making license renewals, are already recommended either deletion. from exposure to radon in outside areas required by 10 CFR part 20 to have modification. or clarification of the due to radium in the soll are negligible.
radiation protection programs aimed Provision for readily removable residual Within buildings. wide variation in towards reducing exposure and radioactivity, local concentrations of naturally minimizin8 waste. In particular. F.S.3 Response.The provision for occurring indoor radon, well in excess S 20.1101(a) requires development and removal of "readily removable" residual of the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) dose implementation of a radiation radioactivity was intended to provide criterion discussed in Section IV.A.
protection plan commensurate with the guidance on what materials should be have been observed in all reglons of the scope and extent of licensed activities removed even if the removal would United States. The dominant factor in and sufficient to ensure compliance have little effect on dose. The intent of determining indoor radon levels are the with the provisions of 10 CFR part 20. this provision is to define the baste design features of any structures at a site Section 20.1101(b) requires licensees to remedies that are a matter of " good where radium is present in the soll.
, use. to the extent practicable. practice" such as common Certain structural features. Including l procedures and engineered controls to housekeeping techniques (e.g., washing energy saving measures that reduce air achieve public doses that are ALARA. In with moderate amounts of detergent and exchange with the outside, can have the addition, lessons learned and water) that do not generate large effect of trapping radon gas within a documented in reports such as NUREG- volumes of radioactive waste requiring building thus allowing buildup of 1444 have focused attention on the need subsequent disposal. As noted in the radon to elevated levels. In addition.
I to minimize and control waste preamble to the proposed rule. removal indoor radon levels can vary generation during operations as part of of this material is considered a significantly over time due to seasonal development of the required radiation necessary and reasonable step toward changes and the rate of air flow in protection plans. Furthermore, the ensuring that doses to the public from rooms.
financial assurance requirements issued residual radioactivity are ALARA. These Another variable in radon levels is in the January 27.1988 (53 FR 24018). considerations should be considered as introduced by the use of radon rule on planning for decommissioning part of an ALARA evaluation for mitigation techniques in buildings require licensees to provide adequate planning decommissioning activities in which can have the effect of reducing funding for decommissionin'g. These a licensee's radiation protection radon levels by deliberate venting of the funding requirements create great program as required by S 20.1101(b). gas to outside areas. In many parts of the I
incentive to minimize contamination F.5. 4 Summary o/ rule revisions for country, local building codes have been and the amount of funds set aside and readily removable radioactivity. Because enacted for the purpose of reducing enpended on cleanup, there is no purpose in duplicating an radon levels in homes, in particular in Thus, current requirements require already existing requirement for areas where there are high levels of both applicants and existing licensees. ALARA the specific provision naturally occurring radium and radon.
(
L_-___--__ _______-_--___-______-__________________-___-_______-_____________-_____________________________-________a
Federal Register / Vol 62. No.139 / Monciay. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39083 The variations in radon levels with 10 CFR part 40. Appendix A. and not be specified in the definition of described above make it very difficult to 10 CFR part 61 that use times of 200- decommissioning because it is a distinguish between naturally occurring 500 years. separate issue from decommissioning.
radon and radon resulting from licensed F. 7.3 Response. As previously Some commenters stated that licenses material. In addition. It is impractical to discussed in the preamble to the should be terminated only when sites predict prospective doses from exposure proposed rule, the Commission believes are given unrestricted release and that to indoor radon due to problems in use of 1000 years in its calculation of restricted use should not be permitted predicting the design features of future maximum dose is reasonable based on or included in the definition, building construction. Because of these the nature of the levels of radioactivity (3) Other comments were also variations and the limitation of at decommissioned sites and the received requesting clarification of other measurement techniques. the potential for changes in the physical definitions contained in the rule.
Commission believes that it is not characteristics at the site over long including inclusion of radon in the practical for licensees to distinguish periods of time. Unlike analyses of definition of background and the .
between radon from licensed activities situations where large quantitles of definitions of critical group, restricted at a dose comparable to a 0.25 mSv/y long. lived radioactive material may be use, release of portions of sites.
(25 mrem /y) dose criterion and radon involved (e g.. a high level waste indistinguishable from background, which occurs naturally. Therefore. In repository) and where distant future readily removable radioactivity, and implementing the final rule, licensees calculations may provide some insight SSABs.
will not be expected to demonstrate that into consequences, in the analysis for C.J.2 Response.The only radon from licensed activities is decommissioning, where the modification that the proposed rule indistinguishable from background on a consequences of exposure to residual made to the existing definition of site-specific basis. Instead this may be radioactivity at levels near background background in 10 CFR part 20 was the considered to have been demonstrated are small and peak doses for inclusion of the phrase "or from past on a generic basis when radium, the radionuclides of interest in nuclear accidents like Chernobyl that principal precursor to radon, meets the decommissioning occur within 1000 e ntribute to background radiation and requirements for unrestricted release. years, long term modeling thousands of are not under the control of the without including doses from the radon years into the future of doses that are licensee." The reason for this pathway. m dification was to further clarify the near background may be virtually In some instances it may not be existing requirement regarding sources meaningless. In 10 CFR part 40 l reasonable to achieve levels of residual Appendix A makes reference to both a f radiation and radionuclides that can j concentrations of radon precursors 200-year and 1000-year time frame.10 be excluded from licensee evaluation.
l within the limit for unrestricted use. As After review f the comments.the discussed in Section IV.B for cases such CFR part 61 references the design of a physical barrier rather than a Commission continues to believe that as these, restricting site use by use of calculation of exposure. the inclusion in background of global
, institutional controls could be F. 7. 4 Summary ofrule revisions, fallout from weapons testing and l considered by a licensee as a means to This provision has been retained in accidents such as Chernobyl is l limit the doses from precursors by appropriate. No compe!!Ing reason was limiting access to the site. Under the 5 20.1401(d) of the final rule.
l presented that would indicate that j restricted use provisions of the rule. C. Other Comments remediation should include material these doses are required to be further ver that the licensee has no control and '
C.1 Definitions (Proposed Rule reduced based on ALARA principles. In S 20'1003) that is present at comparable levels in developing guidance on the application the environment both on and offsite.
of ALARA in such cases, the C.1.1 Comments. There were The existing definition of Commission will also consider the comments on several definitions in decommissioning in 10 CFR parts 30.
practicality of requiring as part of S 20.1003 of the proposed rule including 40. 50. 70, and 72 was incorporated into controls the use of radon mitigation the following: the regulations on June 27.1988 (53 FR techniques in existing or future (1) With regard to the definition of 24018). The Commission continues to structures. background radiation. several believe that " decommissioning" is a F.6.4 Summary ofrule revisions. No commenters opposed defining term for a process which ultimately change to the final rule has been made. " background radiation" in terms of leads to termination of an NRC license currently existing levels and proposed for unrestricted use. The only change to F.7 Calculation of TEDE Over 1000 defining it at the level existing when the existing definition made by the Years to Demonstrate Compliance With human beings and other organisms proposed rule would be adding " release Dose Standard (Proposed Rule evolved; i.e., man.made sources of of property under restricted conditions" 3 20.1403(a)) radiation should not be considered to be to the process of termination of the F. 7.1 Proposed rule contents. a part of " background radiation." One license. In response to commenters who Proposed S 20.1403(a) stated that when commenter suggested that the term disagreed with permitting restricted use, calculating the TEDE the licensee shall " naturally occurring radioactive Section IV.B contains a detailed review ,
base estimates on the TEDE expected material." that is used in the definition of issues on acceptability of restricted j within the first 1000 years after of " background radiation." should also use. Based on that review, the final rule l decommissioning, be defined. This commenter also continues to permit restricted use. i F. 7.2 Comments. Some commenters suggested that the word "like." that Therefore. the definition in the objected to the proposed 1000. year time precedes "Chernobyl." should be proposed rule is not changed.
frame for calculating dose and wanted it replaced with the words "such as" to The remaining comments on lengthened to better predict health clearly indicate that an example is being definitions reflect specific technical effects over the hazardous life of each provided. concerns regarding use of the terms isotope. Other commenters wanted the (2) With regard to the definition of rather than the definition itself. These proposed 1000-year time frame decommissioning. several commenters concerns are discussed in detail in the shortened because it is inconsistent recommended that license termination responses to the technical issues
39084 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations addressed in Sections IV.A through C.4 Consistency With NRC's supplemental environmental review IV.F. Timeliness Rule requirement for a licensee that intends G. !.3 Summary of rule revisions- G. 4.1 Comments. Some commenters '*d**'"'*' """'d "I'
The only change to S 20.1003 is a indicated that the rule is inconsistent c nditions as required in this final rule change in the wording of the definition with NRC's timeliness rule (59 FR and has decided to continue to retain of background to replace the word 36026; July 15.1994). this requiremant. The Commission "like" with the words "such as" before C 4.2 Response. The timeliness rule c nsiders this necessary for any "Chernobyl" as suggested by a requires licensees to notify the Particular site to determme if the commenter. Commission promptly when a decision generic analysis encompasses the range
" P ha G.2 Need for Regulatory Guidance is made to ermanently cease principal ph*t e atio f9r C.2. J Comments. Commenters activities have ceased for 24 months. retaining this requirement was requested that additional regulatory Further, it requires licensees to exPl ained in the preamble to the guidance be provided on a number of complete decommissioning within 24 Proposed rule and has not changed.
subjects including decommissiomng months. The Commission may approve G.6 Mixed Waste. Hazardous Waste.
planning for sites and portions of sites- an alternate schedule to complete and Naturally Occurring and methods for demonstrating compliance decommissioning provided sufficient Accelerator Produced Radioactive with the dose criteria and with ALARA- justification is provided by the licensee. Material means for complying with restricted use Although this rule includes options provisions (including SSAB operations). for license termination or transfer to C.6.1 Comments. Some commenters and contents of a public participation stated that the rule should address the another entity, licensees will still be cleanup of sites with mixed wastes.
plan. Specific comments were received expected to initiate and complete regarding need for guidance on Other commenters recommended that modeling (including methods for decommissioning in a timely manner. If NRC should not regulate any a licensee intends to use the restricted nonradioactive hazardous material translating contamination levels to dose) release option, the licensee is expected beyond its authority. There was and surveys (including measurement of to promptly assess its site disagreement over whether NRC's contamination at low levels). and characteristics. submit a approval of a licensee *s clarification of several terms. decommissioning plan if required. decommissioning activities should be C.2.2 Response. Regulatory guidance provide financial assurance. and dependent on the licensee fulfilling is being developed in the areas include appropriate pub!!c participation other agencies' obligations, especially requested. Regulatory guidance being in its decisionmaking. Because the where accelerator produced materials prepared on dose calculations and requirements allow licensees 12 months may exist. Some commenters stated that surveys for radiological criteria for to submit this information to the the rule criteria are incompatible with decommissioning describes acceptable Commission, sufficient time should be naturally occurring and accelerator-survey methods that !!censees can use. available. The Commission may grant produced radioactive material (NARM).
This guidance describes methods that additional time if the licensee C.6.2 Response. The final rule on
!!censees can use to convert site demonstrates that the relief is not radiological criteria for contamination to dose for the purpose of detrimental to the public health and decommissioning applies to residual compliance with the rule criteria and for safety and is in the public interest. If a radioactivity from all licensed and estimating ALARA.The guidance is the licensee is t nable to demonstrate that unlicensed sources used by the licensee further development of NUREG-1500 release of a site would not prevent a but excludes background radiation. As issued with the proposed rule and member of the public from receiving a such. the NRC or Agreement State, p.esents an approach for assessing dose dose in excess of the public dose limit. whether acting as the lead or coupled with the ability to incorporate the site would not be released but cooperating agency in working with the site-specific parameters. Further would be transferred to a Government licensee to ensure appropriate guidance on public participation and entity or maintained under license. remediation of a contaminated site, restricted use is also being considered to These cases are expected to be rare and would not release a site from its license support this rule. will be handled on a case-by case basis, unless the rule's radiological criteria G.3 Need for Flexibility G.5 Comments From Power Reactor **@r sponsibility for license C.3.1 Comments. Commenters Decommissioning Rulemaking termination at a site with hazardous or indicated that it is important to pruvide C.S.1 Comments. Comments were mixed waste onsite is principally to flexibility in compliance with rule received on the power reactor determine that the radiological requirements by use of site specific decommissioning rule that was recently component of the mixed waste (e g.,
conditions. ALARA. and exemptions in finalized and published on July 29.1996 contaminated soil) complies with the implementation of the criteria. (61 FR 39278). requesting that the rule's radiological criteria. Other C.J.2 Response. Use of site-specific Commission consider the elimination of regulatory agencies are responsible for conditions, especially in calculation of the environmental review requirement control of the hazardous constituents acceptable contamination levels based at the license termination stage and must be notified and accept on site-specific parameters. (S 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(G) and 551.53(b)) for responsibility for appropriate contamination levels and volumes. and decommissioning to unrestricted release management of the released site. The usage of the site. is permitte' d in conditions. In response, the same approach would be followed in complying with the regulations. This Commission indicated that it would potentially releasing a site with will be discussed more fully in the consider these comments in the groundwater contamination exceeding regulatory guidance. Furthermore, the rulemaking on radiological criteria for applicable maximum contaminant final rule provides for establishing decommissioning. levels of nonradiological substances.
alternate license termination criteria C.S.2 Response.The Commission Note that under the Uranium and Mill based on site specific considerations. has considered the elimination of the Tallings Recovery and Control Act a
Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39085 l
(UMTRCA). NRC is responsible for the regulation of certain nonradioactive and practices. Current practices include extensive effort at enhancing radiation surveys to document the participation in the early stages of this hazardous materials.
With regard to NARM. NRC's absence oflicensed radioactive material. rulemaking process through a series of general guidance for reactors contained workshops and environmental impact legislative and regulatory authority in Regulatory Guide 1.86 or similar statement scoping meetings for affected extends to those materials and facilities guidance issued for materials facilities, interests that solicited public comment under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and not to accelerator and site specific technical specifications with regard to radiological criteria for and license conditions. Although these decommissioning. The extent of these produced materials or naturally criteria were not originally derived for meetings was discussed in the preamble occurring radioactive material, except as the case of recycle, they have been to the proposed rule.
It is defined as source material in 10 applied for many years in a wide variety The workshops and the scoping CFR part 40.4.Section IV.A. notes that. of contexts. meetings were not designed to seek although some commenters questioned Continuation of the case by-case the relationship of this rule to NARM, " consensus" in the sense that there is procedure in the future may not be agreement on how each issue should be 3 the criteria of this rule apply to residual practical because of increased quantities resolved. but rather to ensure that, with radioactivity from activities under a of material expected from larger facility informed discussion. relevant issues licensee's control and not to background decommissionings. Also, interest in have been identified and information radiation (that includes radiation from recycling slightly contaminated material exchanged on these issues. j naturally occurring radioactive material is growing both in the United States and Subsequent to the workshops and 1 (NORM)). There are a wide variety of in other countries as a means of scopin8 meetings, the Commission I sites containing NORM subject to EPA conserving resources by limiting the developed the policies and I jurisdiction and not licensed by the amount of new raw materials that are requirements that were deemed 1 NRC. The extent to which the criteria in necessary to produce new products and appropriate for a rule on radiological this rule would apply to these sites equipment and by reducing the costs of criteria for decommissioning, would be based on a separate disposing of large volumes of slightly Information and concepts developed in q evaluation. However, the considerations contaminated material that may pose the workshops were factored into this '
and analyses done for this rulemaking very small risks to the general public. process. For example, a number of in the Final GEIS and regulatory Codifying criteria would allow NRC to themes from the workshops, such as analysis regarding lary fuel cycle and more effectively deal with these issues, consideration of restricted use options, non fuel cycle facilitle> containing large Regulatory action separate from this increased public participation in the site quantitles of naturally occurring decommissioning action by NRC, that decommissioning process and a desire nuclides such as uranium anri thorium would provide clear, consistent criteria to return sites to levels J are appropriate for certain NORM sites, in this area, is being considered, indistinguishable from background. I and the broad provisions of the rule Specifically, the NRC is cooperating were considered during the rulemaking.
(such as control of sites with restrictions with the EPA in developir.g the The Commission also considered the j imposed. use of alternate cap values, technical basis for a recycle rulemaking. approaches of scientific bodies such as j use of alternate criteria, and public At present, the EPA is developing its the ICRP and NCRP, precedents of its participation aspects) may be useful in j
plans for such a rulemaking. The NRC other rulemakings with regard to I considerations regarding NORM sites. will determine what course of action it radiation protection such as 10 CFR part C'7 R'CYC1* will take regarding rulemaking related 20, input from EPA regarding i to recycle after consideration of EPA appropriate risk levels, technical input '
C. 7.1 Comments. Commenters plans. Full opportunity for early public from NRC contractors regarding recommended that recycling of involvement and comment regarding capability to measure at low radiation j equipment or materials be addressed in that regulatory action is anticipated. levels. and the costs and impacts of .
more depth in the final rule. Several Because of this background, no revision achieving alternate levels, commenters stated that recycling of to this decommissioning rule to Preliminary conclusions regarding i contaminated materials that results in consider recycling is being made. this effort were contained in the NRC l
increased exoosures to members of the staff's draft rule (59 FR 4868. February I public is unacceptable. Other C.8 The Rulemaking Process 2.1994) that was sent to Agreement I
commenters favored establishment of G.8.1 Comments. Several States, workshop participants, and other l
criteria for recycled materials. commenters expressed satisfaction with interested parties. The intent of this C. 7.2 Response. The proposed rule the enhanced rulemaking process informal comment period in advance of did not specifically address the recycle undertaken by the NRC for the a proposed rule was to provide an of material or equipment decommissioning rule. Of those opportunity for interested parties to decontaminated as a result of the commenters who opposed the proposed comment on the adequacy of the draft decommissioning process. The decommissioning standards for not criteria.
Commission has a separate being sufficiently restrictive, some were Resolution of comments from the consideration underway of the issues critical of the rulemaking process and workshops and from circulation of the related to cases when the licensee suggested that the NRC had ignored NRC staff draft was discussed in the proposes to intentionally release their earlier participation. Other preamble of the proposed rule material containing residual commenters expressed dissatisfaction published on August 22,1994 (59 FR radioactivity that could become with the proposed standards because 43200). The preamble indicates the available for reuse or recycle. they are overly restrictive. The DOE evolution of the NRC's approach to this Because current NRC regulations do stated that it supported the NRC effort rulemaking as a result of the workshops not contain explicit radiological criteria to issue the rule and thejoint efforts of and the other activities noted above.
for release of equipment and materials, the EPA and the NRC to coordinate their Clearly there are a number of specific l release from licensed facilities is respective rulemaking proceedings. areas which remain difficult to resolve l currently determined by NRC on a case- G.S.2 Response.The NRC has or on which to reach a " consensus?
by-case basis using existing guidance conducted what it considers to be an These areas include the precise level of t
39086 Federal Register / Vot 62. No.139 / Monday, July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations permissible radiological criteria for independent environmental review for to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 decommissioning. restricted use as a each site specific decommissioning (44 U.S.C. 3501 er seg). These means for terminating a license, and the decision where land use restrictions or requirements were approved by the extent of public participation. It is the institutional controls are relled on by Office of Management and Budget.
NRC's consideration that the rulemaking the licensee or where alternate criteria approval number 3150-0014.
process has allowed an airing of are proposed. The public reporting burden for this differing opinions with regard to these The GEIS indicates that the collection ofinformation is estimated to as well as other issues. decommissioning for certain classes of average 31.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> per response, licensees (e g. licensees using only including the time for reviewing V. Agreement State Compatibility sealed sources) will not individually or instructions. searching existing data The Commission has determined that cumulatively have a significant effect on sources, gathering and maintaining the this rule will be a Division 2 matter of the human environment. Therefore, the data needed, and completing and compatibility. For the discussion on the Commission is amending 551.22 of the reviewing the collection of information.
basis for this determination, see Section Commission's regulations to specify that Send comments on any aspect of this IV.F. I . the decommissioning of these types of collection of information, including VL Relationship Between the Generic licenses are actions eligible for suggestions for reducing the burden, to Environmental Impact Statement and categorical exclusion from the the Information and Records Site. Specific Decommissioning Actions Commission s environmental review Management Branch (T-6 F33) U.S.
process. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Generic Environmental Impact VII. Final Generic Environmental Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Statement (CEIS) prepared by the Impact Statement: Availability Internet electronic mail to Commission on this rulemaking BjSl@NRC.COV, and to the Desk evaluates the environmental impacts As required by the National associated with the remediation of Officer. Office of Information and !
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as Regulatory Affairs. NEOB-10202.
several types of NRC licensed facilities amended, and the Commission's to a range of residual radioactivity (3150-0011 and 3150-0093). Office of regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR part Management and Budget. Washington, levels. The Commission believes that 51, the NRC has prepared a final generic DC 20503.
the generic analysis will encompass the environmental impact statement impacts that will occur in most (NUREG-1496) on this proposed rule. Public Protection Notification Commission decisions to decommission The final generic environmental The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, an individual site where the licensee impact statement is available for and a person is not required to respond proposes to release the site for inspection in the NRC Public Document to. a collection of information unless it unrestricted use. Therefore, the Room. 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level). displays a currently valid OMB control Commission plans to rely on the GEIS Washington. DC. Single copies of the number.
to satisfy its obligations under the final generic environmental impact National Environmental Policy Act statement (NUREG-1496) may be IX. Regulatory Analysis regarding individual decommissioning obtained by written request or telefax The Commission has prepared a decisions that meet the 0.25 mSv/y (25 (301-415-2260) from: Office of regulatory analysis on this final mrem /y) criterion for unrestricted use. Administration. Attention: Distribution regulation. The analysis examines the However, the Commission will still and Services Section. U.S. Nuclear costs and benefits of the alternatives initiate an environmental assessment Regulatory Commission. Washington, considered by the Commission. The regarding any particular site, for which DC 20555-0001. anaifsis is available for inspection in a categorical exclusion is not applicable. Background documents on the the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 to determine if the generic analysis rulemaking. including the text of the L Street NW (Lower Level).
encompasses the range of environmental final rule, the final CEIS, and the Washington. DC. Single copies of the impacts at that particular site. regulatory analysis, are also available for analysis may be obtained by written The rule also provides for the downloading and viewing on the NRC request from the Radiation Protection termination of the license and the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking on and Health Effects Branch (RPHEB) release of a site under restricted use Radiological Criteria for Secretary, Office of Nuclear Regulatory conditions if the licensee can Decommissioning Electronic Bulletin Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory demonstrate that land use restrictions or Board.1-800-880-6091 (see 58 FR Commission. Washington. DC 20555.
other types of institutional controls will 37760 (July 13.1993)). The bulletin Background documents on the provide reasonable assurance that the board may be accessed using a personal rulemaking. including the tevt of the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem /y) limit can be computer, a modem, and most final rule, the final GEIS, and the met. The types of controls and their commonly available communications regulatory analysis are also available for contribution to providing reasonable software packages. The communications downloading and viewing on the NRC assurance that the 0.25 mSv/y (25 software should have parity set to none. Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking on mrem /y) limit can be met for a data bits to 8. and stop bits to I (N.8.1) Radiological Criteria for particular site will differ for each site in and use ANSI or VT-100 terminal Decommissioning Electronic Bulletin this category. Similarly, the rule also emulation. For more information call Board (see Section VII, above).
provides that termination of the license Ms. Christine Daily. U.S. N xtear under alternate criteria will be Regulatory Commission. Wahington. X. ReEulato'I Flexibility Certification considered by the Commission in DC 20555. Phone (301) 415-6026; FAX As required by the Regulatory certain site-specific situations that (301) 415-5385. Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
would also differ for each site in this the Commission certifies that this rule.
category.Therefore the environmental VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act if adopted, will not have a significant impacts for these cases cannot be Statement economic impact upon a substantial analyzed on a generic basis and the This final rule amends information number of small entities. Although the Commission veill conduct an collection requirements that are subject final rule would cover all 22.000
)
I Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39087
!!censees regulated by the NRC and Intergnvernmental relations. Nuclear nuclear explosive devices or from past Agreement States, small entitles covered power plants and reactors. Radiation nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl by this rule are primarily licensees that protection. Reactor siting criteria. that contribute to background radiation possess and use only materials with Reporting and recordkeeping and are not under the control of the short half. lives or materials only in requirements. licensee. " Background radlarion" does sealed sources. Decommissioning efforts n t include radiation from source.
for these licensees are simple and 10 CFR Part 51 byproduct. or special nuclear materials require only that sealed sources are Administrative practice and regulated by the Commission.
properly disposed of or that short lived procedure. Environmental impact . . . . .
materials are allowed to decay. statements. Environmental regulations. Critical Group means the group of
- Complete details of the cost analysis are assessments and reports. NEPA individuals reasonably expected to l contained in the regulatory analysis. procedures. Nuclear materials. Nuclear receive the greatest exposure to residual XI. Backfit Analysis Power plants and reactors. Reporting radioactivity for any applicable set of l and recordkeeping requirements- circumstances.
The NRC has determined that the *
- backfit rule.10 CFR 50.109, does not 10 CFR Part 70 * *
- apply to this final rule and therefore, a Criminal penalties. Hazardous backfit analysis is not required for this materials transportation. Material facility or site safely from service and final rule because these amendments do control and accounting Nuclear reduce residual radioactivity to a level not involve reactor operations and
- its l materials. Packaging and containers. )P gr ,
therefore do not involve any provisions Radiation protection. Reporting and that would impose backfits as defined in recordkeeping requirements. Scientific unrestricted license; or use and termination of the 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). equipment. Security measures. Special nuclear material. (2) Release of the property under X11. Small Business Regulatory restricted conditions and termination of Enforcement Fairness Act 10 CFR Part 72 the lir ense.
In accordance with the Small Manpower training programs. Nuclear Business Regulatory Enforcement materials. Occupational safety and Distinguishable from background Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has health. Reporting and recordkeeping means that the detectable concentration determined that this action is not a requirements. Security measures. Spent f a radionuclide is statistically different
" major" rule and has verified this fuel. fr m the background concentration of determination with the Office of that radionuclide in the vicinity of the Information and Regulatory Affairs. * #' " '*** * #"# ** * * "
prearnb and under the aut ority of the Office of Management and Budget. "E
- 9"* *
- Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended' **'***"***'** ' *
- List of Subjects the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 ^ '
3, g 3c, g,"chniq es as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; ,
10 CFR Part 20 , , , ,
the NRC is adopting the following Byproduct material. Criminal amendments to 10 CFR parts 20,30,40. Residual radioactivitymeans penalties. Licensed material. Nuclear 50,51,70. and 72. radioactivity in structures, materials, materials. Nuclear power plants and 5 115. Eroundwater, and other media at reactors. Occupational and public dose PART 20--STANDARDS FOR a site resulting from activities under the Ilmits. Occupational safety and health. PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION licensee s control. This includes Packaging and containers. Permissible radioactivity from all licensed and doses. Radiation protection. Reporting 1. The authority citation for part 20 unlicensed sources used by the lietnsee, and recordkeeping requirements.
c ntinues to read as follows: but excludes background radiation. It Respiratory protection. Special nuclear Authority: Sees. 53, 63. 65. 81.103,104, also includes radioactive materials material. Source material. Surveys and 161,182.186. 68 stat. 930. 933, 935. 936. remaining at the site as a result of monitoring. Waste treatment and 937,948,953. 955. as amended (2 IJ.S.C. routine or accidental releases of 2073.2093,2095.2111,2133.2134,2201. radioactive material at the site and disposal.
2232,2236). secs. 201. as amended. 202. 206. previous burials at the site. even if those 10 CFR Part 30 88 stat.1242 as amended. 1244.1246 (42 burials were made in accordance with S.C. 5841. 5842, 5846).
Byproduct material. Criminal the provisions of 10 CFR part 20.
penalties. Government contracts. 2. In S 20.1003. the definition of + * * *
- Intergovernmental relations. Isotopes. Background radiation is revised and 3. In S 20.1009. paragraph (b) is Nuclear materials. Radiation protection. new definitions Critical Group. revised to read as follows:
Reporting and recordkeeping Decommission. Distinguishable from requirements, background, and Residual radloactivity 620.1009 information coliection are added in alphabetical order to read re@ements: OMB approval.
10 CFR Part 40 as follows:
l Criminal penalties. Government (b) The approved information g 23.1003 Definitions. collection requirements contained in
( contracts. Hazardous materials * * * *
- transportation. Nuclear materials. this part appear in $520.1003,20.1101 Reporting and recordkeepin'g Background radiation means 20.1202,20.1203.20.1204,20.1206, requirements. Source material, radiation from cosmic sources; naturally 20.1208,20.1301.20.1302.20.1403.
Uranium. occurring radioactive material. 20.1404.20.1406, 20.1501.20.1601.
including radon (except as a decay 20.1703,20.1901,20.1902.20.1904.
10 CFR Part 50 product of source or special nuclear 20.1905,20.1906,20.2002.20.2004.
Antitrust. Classified information, material); and global fallout as it exists 20.2006.20.2102,20.2103,20.2104.
Criminal penalties. Fire protection, in the enviror: ment from the testing of 20,2.105.20.2106.20.2107,20.2108.
l I
l
39088 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday July 21. 1997 / Rules and' Regulations -
20.2110.20 2201,20.2202.20.2203. criteria in this subpart the Commission (1) Funds placed into an account 212204. 20.2205. 20.2206. 20.2301, and will require additional cleanup only if, segregated from the licensee's assets and Appendices F and G to 10 CFR Part 20. based on new information. It determines outside the licensee's administrative
. . . . . that the criteria of this subpart were not control as described in 5 30.35(0(l) of
- 4. A new subpart E entitled met and residual radioactivity this chapter;
" Radiological Criteria for License remaining at the site could result in (2) Surety method. insurance. or other Termination." is added to 10 CFR part significant threat to public health and guarantee method as described in 20 to read as follows: safety. 5 30.35(0(2) of this chapter; (d) When calculating TEDE to the (3) A statement of intent in the case Subpart E-Radiological Criteria for average member of the critical group the of Federal. State, or local Government License Termination licensee shall determine the peak licensees. as described in 530.35(0(4) of annual TEDE dose expected within the this chapter; or first 1000 years after decommissioning. (4) When a governmental entity is l401 Ceneral provisions and scope.
20.1402 Radiological criteria for assuming custody and ownership of a 6 20.1402 Radiological criteria for unrestricted use. unrestricted use. site an arrangement that is deemed 20.1403 Criteria for license termination acceptable by such governmental entity.
A site will be considered acceptable under restricted conditions. (d) The licensee has submitted a 20.1404 Alternate criteria for license for unrestricted use if the residual decommissioning plan or License termination. radioactivity that is distinguishable Termination Plan (LTP) to the 20.1405 Public notification and public from background radiation results in a Commission indicating the licensee's participation. TEDE to an average member of the intent to decommission in accordance 20.1406 Minimizattor, of contamination. critical group that does not exceed 25 with 55 30.36(d). 40.42(d). 50.82 (a) and
$ 30.1401 General provisions and scope.
' Pe ear n " "8 (b). 70.38(d). or 72.54 of this chapter.
gro d, ,9 ees (a) The criteria in this subpart apply and specifying that the licensee intends drinking water, and the residual t deconymission by restricting use of to the decommissioning of facilities radioactivity has been reduced to levels the site. The licensee shall document in licensed under parts 30. 40,50. 60. 61-70, and 72 of this chapter, as well as that are as low as reasonably achievable the LTP or decommissioning plan how (ALARA). Determination of the levels the advice of individuals and other facilities subject to the which are ALARA must take into Commission'sjurisdiction under the instituti ns in the community who may account consideration of any Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended detriments. such as deaths from be affected by the decommissioning has and the Energy Reorganization Act of been sought and incorporated, as transportation accidents expected to appropriate. following analysis of that 1974, as amended. For high. level and potentially result from decontamination advice.
low level waste disposal facilities (10 and waste disposal.
CFR parts 60 and 61). the criteria apply (1) Licensees proposing to only to ancillary surface facilities thrt $ 20.1403 Criteria for license termination decommission by restricting use of the support radioactive waste disposal under restricted conditions. site shall seek advice from such affected activities. The criteria do not apply to A site will be considered acceptable parties regarding the following matters uranium and thorium recovery facilities for license termination under restricted concerning the proposed already subject to appendix A to 10 CFR conditions if: decommissioning-part 40 or to uranium solution (a) The licensee can demonstrate that (i) Whether provisions for extraction facilities, further reductions in residual institutional controls proposed by the (b) The criteria in this subpart do not radioactivity necessary to comply with licensee; the provisions of $ 20.1402 would result (A) Will provide reasonable assurance ap(plyi) Have to sites which:
been decommissioned prior in net public or environmental harm or that the TEDE from residual to the effe.ctive date of the rulo in were not being made because the radioactivity distinguishable from accordance with criteria ident ' led in residual levels associated with restricted background to the average member of the Site Decommissioning Management conditions are ALARA. Determination the critical group will not exceed 25 Plan (SDMP) Action Plan of April 16. of the levels which are ALARA must mrem (0.25 mSv) TEDE per year; 1992 (57 FR 13389); take into account consideration of any (B) Will be enforceable; and (2) Have previously submitted and detriments such as traffic accidents. (C) Will not impose undue burdens on received Commission approval on a expected to potentially result from the local community or other affected license termination plan (LTP) or decontamination and waste disposal; parties.
decommissioning plan that is (b) The licensee has made provisions (ii) Whether the licensee has provided compatible wita the SDMP Action Plan for legally enforceable institutional sufficient financial assurance to enable criteria; or controls that provide reasonable an independent third party, including a (3) Submit a sufficient LTP or assurance that the TEDE from residual governmental custodian of a site, to decommissioning plan before August radioactivity distinguishable from assume and carry out responsibilities for 20,1998 and such LTP or background to the average member of any necessary control anel maintenance decommissioning plan is approved by the critical group will not exceed 25 of the site; the Commission before August 20.1999 mrem (0.25 mSv) per year; (2) In seeking advice on the issues and in accordance with the criteria (c) The licencee has provided identified in S 20.1403(d)(1), the identified in the SDMP Action Plan, sufficient financial assurance to enable licensee shall provide for:
except that if an EIS is required in the an independent third party, including a (i) Participation by representatives of submittal, there will be a provision for governmental custodian of a site, to a bread cross section of community day-for-day extension. assume and carry out responsibilities for interests who may be affected by the (c) After a site has been any necessary control and maintenance decommissioning:
decommissioned and the license of the site. Acceptable financial (ii) An opportunity for a terminated in accordance with the assurance mechanisms are- comprehensive, collective discussion on
Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39089 the issues by the participants potentially result from decontamination forum that is readily accessible to represented; and and waste disposal. Individuals in the vicinity of the site.
(111) A publicly available summary of (4) Has submitted a decommissiening and solicit comments from affected the results of all such discussions. plan or License Termination Plan (LTP) parties.
including a description of the to the Commission indicating the individual viewpoints of the licensee's intent to decommission in 5 20.1406 Minimization of contamination.
participants on the issues and the extent accordance with SS 30.36(d). 40A2(d). Applicants for licenses, other than of agreement and disagreement among 50.82 (a) and (b). 70.38(d). or 72.54 of renewals. after August 20.1997 shall the participants on the issues: and this chapter, and specifying that the (e) Residual radioactivity at the site describe in the application how facility licensee proposes to decommission by design and procedures for operation has been reduced so that if the use of alternate criteria. The licensee will minimize. to the extent practicable.
Institutional controls wete no longer in shall document in the decommissioning contamination of the facility and the effect, there is reasonable assurance that plan or LTP how the advice of environment facilitate eventual the TEDE from residual radioactivity individuals and institutions in the decommissioning, and minimize, to the distinguishable from background to the community w ho may be affected by the extent practicable. the generation of average member of the critical group is decommissioning has been sought and radioactive waste.
as low as reasonably achievable and addressed, as appropriate, following 5. In $ 20.2402, paragraph (b) is would not exceed either- analysis of that advice. In seeking such (1) 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year; or revised to read as follows:
advice the licensee : hall provide for:
(2) 500 mrem (5 mSv) per year (i) Participation by representatives of $ 20.2402 criminal penattles.
provided the licensee- a broad cross section of community * * * * *
(t) Demonstrates that further interests who may be affected by the (b) The regulations in SS 20.1001 reductions in residual radioactivity decommissioning; through 20.2402 that are not issued necessary to comply with the 100 (ii) An opportunity for a mrem /y (1 mSv/y) value of paragraph under Sections 161b 1611. or 161o for comprehensive, collective discussion on the purposes of Section 223 are as (e)(1) of this section are not technically the issues by the participants follows: SS 20.1001. 20.1002. 20.1003, achievable, would be prohibitively represented; and 20.1004,20.1005.20.1006.20.1007, expensive, or would result in net public (iii) A publicly available summary of 20.1008,20.1009,20.1405.20.1704 or environmental harm; {
the results of all such discussions. 20.1903.20.1905,20.2002.20.2007. '
(ii) Makes provisions for durable including a description of the 20.2301,20.2302. 20.2401, and 20.2402.
Institutional controls: Individual viewpoints of the (111) Provides sufficient financial participants on the issues and the extent PART 30-RULES OF GENERAL assurance to enable a responsible of agreement and disagreement among APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC governmens entity or independent third the participants on the issues. LICENSING OF BYPRODUCT party including a governmental (b) The use of alternate criteria to MATERIAL custodian of a site. both to carry out terminate a license requires the periodic rechecks of the site no less approval of the Commission after 6. The authority citation for part 30 frequently than every 5 years to assure consideration of the NRC staff's c ntinues to read as follows:
that the institutional controls remain in recommendations that will address any Authoriry: Secs. 81,82,161.182.183.186, place as necessary to meet the criteria of comments provided by the 68 Stat. 935. 948,953. 954. 955. as amended, i
S 20.1403(b) and to assume and carry Environmental Protection Agency and sec. 234. 83 Stat 444. as amended (42 U.S.C.
out responsibilities for any necessary any public comments submitted 2111.2112.2201,2232,2233,2236.2282%
I control and maintenance of those ded 2 pursuant to S 20.1405. 5' 88 a.
controls. Acceptable financial assuranc 3242, as i nen$'d. i2N.02 1b6 20 mechanisms are those in paragraph (c) 20.1405 Public notification and public 5841.5842,5846).
of this section. articipation. Secti n 30.7 also issued under Pub. L 95-Upon the receipt of an LTP or 601. sec.10. 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by .
$ 20.1404 Alternate criteria for license decommissioning plan from the Pub. L 102-486, sec. 2902,106 Stat 3123 (2 tIrmination. U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued l
I censee, or a proposal by the licensee under sec.184. 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 (a) The Commission may terminate a for release of a site pursuant to U.S C. 2234). Section 30.61 also issued under license using alternate criteria greater SS 20.1403 or 20.1404, or whenever the sec.187,68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
than the dose criterion of SS20.1402 commission deems such notice to be in 20.1403(b). and 20.1403(d)(1)(i)(A). If the public interest. the Commission 7. In S 30.4' the definition of the licensee- shall: Decommission is revised to read as (1) Provides assurance that public (a) Notify and solicit comments from: g U *5' l health and safety would continue to be (1) local and State governments in the $ 30.4 Definitions.
protected. and that it is unlikely that the vicinity of the site and any Indian . . . . .
dose from all man.made sources Nation or other indigenous people that combined other than medical, would be have treaty or statutory rights that could Decommission means to remove a ,
more than the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem /y) be affected by the decommissioning: facility or site safely from service and l limit of subpart D. by submitting an end reduce residual radioactivity to a level analysis of possible sources of exposure: (2) the Environmental Protection that permits-(2) Has employed to the ektent Agency for cases where the licensee (1) ase of the property for practical restrictions on site use proposes to release a site pursuant to according to the provisions of S 20.1403 S20.1404. U C'"S*; '
in minimizing exposures at the site: and (b) Publish a notice in the Federaj (2) Release of the property under (3) Reduces doses to ALARA levels. Register and in a forum, such as local restricted conditions and termination of taking into consideration any detriments newspapers, letters to State or local the license.
such as traffic accidents expected to organizations, or other appropriate * * * *
- 39090 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and'Reguhrtions
- 8. In 5 30.35. paragraph (f)(5) is added 2233. 2236. 2282); sec. 274. Pub. L 86-373. manner that the premises are suitable 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S C. 2021); secs. 201. as for release in accordance with the and paragraph (g)(3)(iv) is revised to read as follows. '
amended. 202. 206. 88 Stat.1242. as criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR amended. 1244.1246 (42 U.S.C. 584 t. 5842- part 20. subpart E. The licensee shall, as 5846h sec. 275. 92 Stat. 3021. as amended by 930.35 Financial assurance and appropriate-recordkeeping for decommissioning. Pub. L.97-415. 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S C. , , , , ,
. . . . . 2022).
g... Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95- (k) * * *
(5) When a governmental entity is 'g"iO2486seI.2902106 a 123. (3)(i) A radiation survey has been assuming custody and ownership of a (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section .:0 31(g) also issued Performed which demonstrates that the site, an arrangement that is deemed under sec.122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S C. 2152). premises are suitable for release in acc able by such governmental entity. Section 40.46 also issued under sec.184. 68 accordance with the criteria for
- decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20.
Stat. 954 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
()*** Section 40.71 also issued under sec.187. 68 subpart E: or (iv) All areas outside of restricted Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). (ii) Other information submitted by areas that contain material such that, if the licensee is sufficient to demonstrate
- 11. In 5 40.4. the definition of the license expired, the licensee would Decommission is revised to read as that the premises are suitable for release be required to either decontaminate the follows: in accordance with the criterie for area to meet the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20.
decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20. 540.4 Definitions. subpart E.
subpart E or apply for approval for . . . . .
disposal under 10 CFR 20.2002. Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service and PART SG-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF
- 9. In 5 30.36. the introductory text of reduce residual radioactivity to a level PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION paragraph (J)(2) and paragraph (k)(3) are that permits- FACILITIES revised to read as follows: (1) Release of the property for unreMcd use and tednah M We R h MW dah h p M
$ 30.36 Expiration and termination of condnues m read as MowL.
licenses and decommissioning of sites and license: or srparate buildings or outdoor areas. (2) Release of the property under Authority: Sees.102,103.104.105.161
. . . . . restricted conditions and termination of 182.183.186.189. 68 Stat. 936,937,938.
... the license. 948. 953. 954. 955,956. as amended. sec.
. . . '. . 234,83 Stat.1244. as amended (42 U.S.C.
- 2) Conduct a radiation survey of the
- 12. In 5 40.36, paragraph (e)(5) is 2 2 213 1.2232 2 premises where the licensed activities ,, , dd were carried out and submit a report of added and paragraph (f)(3)(iv) is revised 202. 206. 88 Stat.1242 as amended.1244, the results of this survey, unless the to read as follows:
1246 (42 U.S C. 5841. 5842. 5846).
licensee demonstrates in some other Section 50.7 is also issued under Pub. L.
l 40.36 Financial assurance and manner that the premises are suitable recordkeeping for decommissioning.95-601. sec.10. 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by for release in accordance with the . . . . .
Pub. L.102 486, sec. 2902,106 Stat. 3123 (42 criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR . . U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under (c) secs.101,185. 68 Stat. 936. 955, as amended part 20. subpart E. The licensee shall, as (5) When a governmental entity is (42 U.S.C. 2131,2235); sec.102. Pub. L. 91-appropriate- assuming custody and ownership of a
- * * *
- 190. 82 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections site, an arrangement that is deemed 50.13. 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued N*** acceptable by such governmental entity. under sec.108. 68 Stat. 939 as amended (42 (3)(i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates that the (r) . . . U.S.C. 2138).
Se:.tions 50.23. 50.35. 50.55. and 50.56 also premises are stritable for release in (3) . . . issued under sec.185. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.
(iv) All areas outside of restricted 2235). Sections 50.33a 50.55a and Appendix accordance with the criteria for areas that contain material such that, if decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20- Q also issued under sec.102. Pub. L.91-190.
the license expired, the licensee would 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 E
be required to either decontaminate the and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204. 88 Stat.
sub{a(; th r nformation submitted bY area to meet the criteris for 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, the licensee is sufficient to demonstrate decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20. and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415.
that the premises are suitable for release subpart E. or apply for approval for 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 in accordance with the criteria for disposal under 10 CFR 20.2002. also issued under sec.122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20. . . . . . U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50-81 also subpart E. issued under sec.184. 68 Stat. 954, as
. . . . . 13. In 5 40.42 the introductory text of amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also paragraph 0)(2) and paragraph (k)(3) are issued under sec.187. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.
PART 40---DOMESTIC LICENSING OF revised to read as follows: 2237).
SOURCE MATERIAL $ 40.42 Expiration and termination of 15. In 5 50.2. the definition of
- 10. The authority citation for part 40 licenses and decommissioning of sites and Decommission is revised to read as separate buildings or outdoor areas. fo((ow3:
continues to read as follows; Authority: Secs. 62. 63. 64. 65. 81.161 g) . . . 5 50.2 Definitions.
182. I83.186. 68 Stat. 932. 933,935. 94 S. . . . . .
953,954. 955, as amended, secs. Ile(2). 83. (2) Conduct a radiation survey of the
- 84. Pub L.95-604,92 Stat. 3033 as premises where the licensed activities Decommission means to remove a amended. 3039. sec. 234,83 Stat. 444, as were carried out and submit a report of facility or site safely from service and amended (42 U.S C. 2014(e)(2) 2092. 2093, the results of this survey. unless the reduce residual radioactivity to a level 2094.2095.2111.2113,2114,2201.2232. licensee demonstrates in some other that permits-J
Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 39091 (1) Release of the property for (20) Decommissioning of sites where the license expired, the licensee would unrestricted use and termination of the licensed operations have been limited to be required to either decontaminate the license: or the use of- area to meet the criteria for (2) Release of the property under (I) Small quantitles of short. lived decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, restricted conditions and termination of radioactive materials; or subpart E or apply for approval for the license. (ii) Radioactive materials in sealed disposal under 10 CFR 20.2002.
. . . . . sources, provided there is no evidence . . . . .
- 16. In 5 50.82, paragraphs (a)(1 I)(11) ofleakage of radioactive material from these sealed sources-
- 22. In S 70.38. the introductory text of and (b)(6)(li) are revised to read as paragraph (j)(2) and paragraph (k)(3) are follows: * * * *
- revised to read as follows:
6 50.82 Termination of license. PART 70-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF $ 70.38 Expiration and termination of SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL licenses and decommissioning of sites and (a) *'*
- Separate buildings or outdoor areas.
ggg) . . . 19. The authority citation for part 70 . . . . .
(11) The terminal radiation survey and c ntinues to read as follows: g) . . .
associated documentation demonstrates Authority: Secs. 51,53.161,182.183.68 (2) Conduct a radiation survey of the that the facility and site are suitable for Stat. 929. 930. 948. 953. 954, as amended, premises where the licensed activities release in accordance with the criteria sec. 234. 83 Stat. 444. as amended (42 U.S.C. were carried out and submit a report of for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20 the results of this survey. unless the
. b' tt- -
subpart E.
(b) * * *
!$.ks am'ndek'.f0f. .
1242, as amended 1244,1245.1246 (42 licensee demonstrates in some other manner that the premises are suitable U.S.C. 5841. 5842. 5845. 5846).
(6) * *
- Sections 70.I(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued for release in accordance with the (ii) The terminal radiation survey and under secs. 135.141. Pub. L.97-425,96 Stat. criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR associated documentation demonstrate 2232,2241 (42 U.S.C.10155.10161). Section part 20. subpart E. The licensee shall, as that the facility and site are suitable for 70.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601. sec. appropriate-release in accordance with the criteria 10,92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L.102- . . . . .
for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, 486 sec. 2902.106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. N...
subpart E. 5851). Section 70.21(a) also issued under sec. 122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section (3)(i) A radiation survey has been 70.31 also issued under sec. 57d. Pub. L. 93- Performed which demonstrates that the 377. 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections Premises are suitable for release in PART 51-ENVIRONMENTAL 70.36 and 70.44 also issued under sec.184 accordance with the criteria for PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20.
DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED Secti n 70.61 also issued under secs.186, subpart E: or 8 68 REGULATORY FUNCTIONS ' '
3e on 0 62 als sue under ec 1 .68 the licensee is sufficient to demonstrate
- 17. The authority citation for part 51 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
that the premises are suitable for release continues to read as follows: 20. In 5 70.4. the definition of in accordance with the criteria for Authority:Sec.161. 68 Stat. 948, as Decommission is revised to read as decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20.
amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); secs. 201. as follows: subpart E.
amended. 202. 88 Stat.1242. as amended, * * * *
- 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841,5842). 5 70.4 Definitions
- Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. secs.102. Decommission means to remove a PART 72-LICENSING 104,105,83 Stat. 853-854. as amended 72 facility or site safely from service and REQUIREMENTS FOR THE U.S.C. 4332. 4334. 4335); and Pub. L.95-604, reduce residual radioactivity to a level INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT Title !!. 92 Stat. 3033-3041: and sec.193. that permits- NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL Pub. L.101-575.104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S C. (1) Release of the property for RADIDACTIVE WASTE 2243). Sections 51.20. 51.30. 51.60. 51.61.
51.80, and 51.97 also issued under secs.135, unrestricted use anci termination of the 23. The authority citation for part 72 license; or continues to read as follows:
141. Pub. L.97-425,96 Stat. 2232, 2241. and sec. I 48. Pub. L.100-203.101 Stat.1330-223 (2) Release f tine Property under Authority: Sees. 51. 53,57. 62. 63. 65. 69.
(42 U.S.C.10155.10161.10168) Section restricted conditions and termination of 81,161.182,183.184.186.187,189. 68 Stat.
51.22 also issued under sec. 274. 73 Stat. 688 the license. 929,930,932.933.934,935.948,953.954, as amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. * * * *
- 955, as amended. sec. 234,83 Stat. 444, as 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 21. In S 70.25, paragraph (0(5) is amended (42 U.S.C. 2071. 2073. 2077. 2092 1982. sec.121. 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. added and paragraph (g)(3)(iv) is revised 2093.2095.2099.2111,2201,2232.2233.
10141). Sections 51.43. 51.67, and 51.109 to read as follows: 2234. 2236. 2237. 2238. 2282): sec. 274. Pub, also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act L.86-373. 73 Stat. 688. as amended (42 of 1982, sec. I14(f). 96 Stat. 2216 as 9 70.25 Financial assurance and U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201. as amended. 202.206 l i
amended (42 U.S.C.10134(0). recordkeeping for decommissioning. 88 Stat.1242. as amended. 1244.1246 (42
. . . . . U.S.C. 5841. 5842. 5846): Pub. L.95-601. sec.
- 18. In 5 51.22, paragraph (c)(20) is I (0 . . . 10,92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L 102-
[ added to read as follows: 486. sec. 2902,106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C.
l (5) When a governmental entity is 5851); sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853
$ 51.22 Criterion for categorical exclusion; assuming custody and ownership of a (42 U.S.C. 4332). Secs.131,132.133.135, id:ntification of licensing and regulatory site, an arrangement that is deemed 137,141. Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat. 2229,2230.
tctions eligible for categorical exclusion or acceptable by such governmental entity. 2232.2241.sec.148. Pub.L.100-203.101 ctherwise not requiring environmental
(
'"I"- (g)
- 3) ***** * '
Stat.1330-235 (42 U.S.C.10151.10152 10153.10155.10157,10161, 10168).
(iv) All areas outside of restricted Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs.
(c) * *
- areas that contain material such that, if 142(b) and 148 (c). (d), Pub. L 100-203.101 t.
39092 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No.139 / Monday. July 21. 1997 / Rules and' Regula'tions Stat.1330-232.1330-236 (42 U.S C. (2) Release of the property under licensee demonstrates in some other 10lG2(b) 10168 (c). (d)). Section 72.46 also restricted conditions and termination of manner that the premises are suitable
! tssued under sec.189. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U S.C- the license. for release in accordance with the 1
2239) sec.134. Pub. L.97-425. 96 Stat. 2230 . . . . . criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR (42 U.S C.10154) Section 72.96(d) also 25. In 5 72.30. paragraph (c)(6) is part 20. subpart E. The licensee shall, as issued under sec.145(g). Pub. L.100-203, added to read as follows- appropriate-101 Stat.1330-235 (42 U.S C.10165(g)).
Subpart J also issued under secs 2(2). 2(15). 5 72.30 Financial assurance and (m) * * *
' recordkeeping for decommissioning. (2)(i) A radiation survey has been 2(19). Il7(a).141(h). Pub. L.97-425. 90 Stat.
l 2202,2203. 2204. 2222. 2244. (42 U.S C. * * * *
- Performed which demonstrates that the l 10101.10137(a).1016 t(h)). Subparts K and L (c) * *
- Premises are suitable for release in l are also issued under sec.133,98 Stat. 2230 (6) When a governmental entity is accordance with the criteria for assuming custody and ownership of a decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20.
(42 U.S.C.10153) end Sec. 218(a) 96 Stat.
I 2252 (42 U.S C.10198), site, an arrangement that is deemed subpart E; or i acceptable by such governmental entity. (ii) Other information submitted by
- 24. In 5 72.3. the definition of . . . . . the licensee is sufficient to demonstrate Decommission is revised to read as 26. In S 72.54. the introductory text of that the premises are suitable for release follows: paragraph (1)(2) and paragraph (m)(2) in accordance with the criteria for are revised to read as follows: decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20.
572.3 Definitions. subpart E.
i
- * * *
- 5 72.54 Expiration and termination of . . . . .
Decommission means to remove a ',I'"p rate bu dings utdoj areas Dated at Rockville. Maryland this 1st day l facility or site safely from service and . . . . .
of July 1997.
reduce residual radioactivity to a level For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
that permits-(i) . . . John C. Hoyle.
l (2) Conduct a radiation survey of the I (1) Release of the property for premises where the licensed activities Secretary ofthe Commission.
unrestricted use and termination of the were conducted and submit a report of (FR Doc. 97-17752 Filed 7-18-97; 8:45 am]
license; or the results of this survey. unless the swso coos 7 sawn-e J