ML20237E368

Requests Commission Approval of Staff Plans to Implement Transition from Sdmp to Comprehensive Decommissioning Program & Provide Addl Info Specifically Requested by Commission

ML20237E368
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1998
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
SECY-98-155, SECY-98-155-01, SECY-98-155-1, SECY-98-155-R, NUDOCS 9808310190
Download: ML20237E368 (21)

Text

se .....................

' RELEASED TO THE PDR

\

i  !;?  % 5 387h/ 00J h

,3 dato initials

e ooseseeeeeeeeeeeoooooos

%...../

POLICY ISSUE June 30.1998 (Notation Vote) secy_ga_lss EDE: The Commissioners FROM L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations EUELECI: TRANSITION FROM SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN TO COMPREHENSIVE DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM PURPOSE:

To request Commission approval of staff plans to implement the transition from the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) to a comprehensive decommissioning program, and to provide additional information specifically requested by the Commission, BACKGROUND:

The staff briefed the Commission on the status of the SDMP on October 29,1997. In response, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated December 11,1997. The Commission did not approve the staff's proposal to phase out the SDMP terminology, and requested a detailed plan for transitioning from the SDMP to a comprehensive decommissioning program encompassing all sites if the staff proposed to proceed in this manner. Specifically, the Commission requested information on: 1) the impact of the Final Rule on Radiological Cnteria for License Termination [ License Termination Rule (LTR)] on the Branch Technical Position (BTP) for screening former onsite burials, and how former burials for which the screening process has already begun will be handled under the LTR; 2) the status of existing guidance when the transition to the LTR is complete; 3) how sites previously released from the SDMP

/

measure up to the criteria in the LTR; and 4) whether the concerns raised by the 1989 General l! !

Accounting Office (GAO) report and Congressional hearing on site decommissioning have been satisfactorily resolved.

CONTACT: David N. Fauver, NMSS/DWM 301-415-6625 To be made publicly available when the final SRM is made ,

4p available. M r

Q >4 9 h. ( , . s,;1 i 9808310190 980630 PDR SECY 98-155 R PDR  ; y- 9Ji+4 t g,

The Commissioners ,

Discussion:

The staff's proposed transition plan from the SDMP to a comprehensive decommissioning program includes four major components: 1) maintain the SDMP site list to track progress at complex decommissioning sites,2) shift decommissioning issue resolution from the SDMP to the Agency Operating Plan, 3) develop a standard review plan (SRP) and a regulatory guide to implement the LTR, and 4) phase out or revise existing SDMP guidance documents to be consistent with the LTR.-

1. Future Role of SDMP

. The original SDMP had two major objectives: 1) to identify and manage specific problem sites through the decommissioning process, and 2) to resolve decommissioning policy issues. The staff will continue to maintain the current SDMP site list to identify and manage complex decommissioning cases, with some modification to the listing criteria for new cases, as described below. However, the staff plans to manage emerging decommissioning policy issues through the Agency Operating Plan, as opposed to the SDMP. The staff is withdrawing its proposal to phase out the SDMP terminology and will issue a status report on SDMP site decommissioning progress by January 1999.

There were five criteria for listing a site in the original SDMP: 1) the responsible organization may not be financially viable; 2) there are volumes of contaminated soil, sludge, or slag, or

- onsite burials, present; 3) there is the long-term presence of contaminated, unused, buildings; 4) the license was previously terminated, but contamination levels exceed current unrestricted use levels; and 5) the ground water at a site is contaminated, or potentially contaminated, from onsite wastes. For new cases, the staff plans to modify the listing criteria to more closely track with the requirements of the LTR. Existing SDMP sites will remain on the list. In the future, licensees proposing to terminate their licenses under the restricted use provision of the LTR will be listed in the SDMP. The restricted use sites are expected to be the most technically challenging, to potentially involve policy issues, and to be resource intensive. (Such listing will not imply that restricted release is permitted under the SDMP Action Plan criteria, as opposed to the dose-based criteria of the LTR). The staff will also evaluate the more complex unrestricted use sites and list on the SDMP those that are projected to be non-routine, and to require a significant level of technical and policy input from Headquarters. Note that, in the context of a comprehensive decommissioning program, the SDMP primarily becomes a management tool to track site-specific progress at significant sites. Adding a new site to the SDMP will not necessarily indicate that the site is a " problem" site. The future SDMP listing criteria would be aa follows:

. All Restricted Use Sites

. Complex Unrestricted Use Sites l

- sites requiring detailed site-specific dose modeling

- sites subjected to heightened public, State, or Congressional interest

- sites with questionable financial viability I

L

The Commissioners As discussed below, the policy issues originally associated with the SDMP have been addressed. Therefore, the staff proposes to discont;nue using the SDMP as the primary vehicle for managing generic decommissioning policy issues. Generic issues will continue to be identified through the staff experience with decommissioning SDMP sites, but the issue resolution will now be managed through the Agency Operating Plan. Using the Agency Operating Plan will facilitate the integration of overlapping issues encountered at non-SDMP sites, and power reactors, with those identified at SDMP sites, and will improve the effectiveness of issue resolution. To assist in the integration of the decommissioning programs in the various U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Offices and Regions, a Decommissioning Management Board has been established. .The Board is chaired by the Director of the Division of Waste Management, and is comprised of managers from the Division of Waste Management, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of Nuclear Regulator'; Research (RES), and the Regions. Attachment 1 contains the Charter for the Decommissioning Management Board.

2. Status of Decommissioning Guidance Documents after the Transition to the License Termination Rule.

Regulatory Guide DG-4006, " Demonstrating Compliance with the Radiological Criteria for License Termination" (DG-4006), aM the supporting series of NUREG documents, provide guidance to licensees on methods Tor h,plementing the LTR. The regulatory guide and supporting NUREGs were provided to the Commission for review on March 16,1998, in SECY-98-051.

In addition, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) staff, with the support of RES,is developing a decommissioning SRP. Attachment 2 contains a brief description of the planned scope and content of the SRP. The SRP and DG-4006 will be closely coordinated and will incorporate or supersede most of the existing guidance documents. Other guidance documents will be revised to be consistent with the LTR, or their use will be phased out.

Attachment 3 lists the projected status of 18 existing guidance documents that require  !

consideration during the transition to the LTR. Staff resources will be applied to the development of the SRP first, followed by the revision of the documents that will be reissued.

The SRP is expected to be completed within 2 years. Depending on the availability of resources, conforming revisions to some low-priority documents may be delayed beyond fiscal year 2000.

The status of the surface contamination criteria in the NMSS document " Guidelines for the l Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or j

' Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nucisar Material" is worthy of special discussion. The use of the listed surface contamination criteria as decommissioning criteria to support license termination will be phased out, and superseded by the guidance in DG-4006 and the SRP. Note that the surface contamination criteria will continue to be used for the release of equipment and material during routine operations before license termination because the LTR only addresses enteria for license termination, in SECY-98-028, " Regulatory Options for Setting Standards on Clearance of Materials and Equipment Having Residual Radioactivity," the staff provided the Commission with a paper cuttining several options related to this issue.

L'

0 The Commissioners 3; Draft BTP on " Screening Methodology for Assessing Prior Land Burials of Radioactive Wastes Authorized Under Former 10 CFR 20.304 and 20.302" The Commission specifically requested the staff to address the impact of the LTR on the above mentioned Draft BTP and how sites for which the screening process had already begun will be

' handled under the LTR. The Draft BTP was developed to provide a simple, conservative, screening tool that could be used to discriminate between former burials that pose minimal risk and those that pose a more significant risk. This tcol was needed since the SDMP Action Plan criteria are concentration-based, not dose-based. Essentially, all former burials were expected to exceed the concentration-based criteria, even though the risk from some of the burials was expected to be low. The staff believed that a requirement to perform detailed site-specific characterizations and dose assessments would be overly burdensome for these low-risk sites.

The staff has reevaluated the Draft BTP in light of the LTR and determined that the L7R provides sufficient flexibility to be applied in a risk-informed manner at the former burial sites.

.Therefore, the staff will discontinue use of the Draft BTP. The SRP will provide guidance on dose assessments applicable to former buriais that will incorpo' rate the risk-informed aspects of the BTP, such as treatment of source term and averaging protocols. All burials for which the screaning process has already begun will be evaluated in a manner consistant with the LTR.

4. Resolution of Concems Raised by Congress and the General Accounting Office On May 26,1989, the General Accounting Office issued a report entitled, "NRC's Decommissioning Procedures and Critena Need to be Strengthened." A Congressional hearing on the GAO's findings was held on August 3,1989, at which former Chairman Carr provided )

testimony and made several commitments. A list of NRC's action items resulting from the hearing was provided in an August 14,1989, memorandum from former Chairman Carr (Attachment 4).- The commitments were satisfied through stsiff actions completed from 1989 to 1997. These actions are listed in Attachment 5.

5. Generic Evaluation of Doses at SDMP Sites Released under the Action Plan Criteria The Commission requested the staff to evaluate how sites already released from the SDMP list will measure up to the LTR criteria. Attachment 6 contains a reproduction of a table provided to

. the Commission in SECY-91-342A, " Issues Associated with Ensuring Timely Remediation of Sites Listed in the Site Decommissioning Management Plan," December 31,1991. The table contains the staff's generic estimation of the range of doses that could result if a site was released using the SDMP Action Plan criteria, or other criteria used prior to the LTR. The values do not represent dose estimates for actual sites released, but are intended to provide a general indication of the range of possible doses from grandfathered sites. The dose estimates for two of the radionuclides listed in Atte+ ment 6, natural uranium (U-Nat) and americium-241 (Am-241) exceed 100 mrem /yr. For U-Nat, the dose estimate exceeded 100 mrem /yr because of the

projected dose from radon-222 and its daughter products, which are not regut;Dd under the

LTR. .The Am-241 dose estimate is not applicable to SDMP sites released to date since none of the sites released have conta)ned significant levels of Am-241. In addition, note that the levels of residual contamination that actually remain at the sites that have been released are less than the maximum levels specified in ths criteria, in some cases significantly less.

< )

I l

The Commissioners l The guidance contained in SECY-98-051, that is currently under Cornmission review, contains general information on the staff's proposed methods for performing dose asset,sments for compliance with the LTR. However, as listed in Attachment 2, there are many technical issues related to dose modeling that remain to be resolved. It is important to recognize that the results ,

of dose estimates performed in accordance with the final LTR guidance may be substantially l

different from the doses listed in Attachment 6, depending on the extent of site-specific i information included in the dose a.4essment.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections.

RECOMMENDATION.

The staff recommends that the Commission approve the transition plan, which would retain the SDMP list for management of complex sites, replace the SDMP Action Plan criteria with the new j guidance developed to imp ~ement the LTR, and use the Agency Operating Plan as the vehicle to l manage emerging decommissioning policy issues.

h b L. Jo Execut e Director I

'for perations Attachments:

1. Charter for Decommissioning Management Board

2. Outline of Standard Review Plan

3. Status of Existing Decommissioning Guidance

4. Congressional and GAO Commitments

5. Resolution of Congressional and GAO Commitments

6. Projected Doses at Sites Released from the SDMP l

l

6 Commissioners' completed vote sheets / comments should be provided directly to ,

the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Fridav. July 17.1998. l Commission staff office comments,if any, shou;d be submitted to the Commissioners NLT July 10.1998. with an information copy to SECY. If the s paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the l Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may J be expected. l DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA OlG OPA OCA ACNW CIO CFO EDO REGIONS SECY l

4 L

CHARTER for DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT BOARD

. Establishment of Decommissioning Manaaement Boatd In May 1998, The Decommissioning Program Manager established the Decommissioning Management Board (Board)to support the decommissioning program by providing coordinated management oversight for the development and implementation of generic and site-specific policies and guidance for the facilities and materials decommissioning program (program).

~ Oversiaht Role of Board in its management oversight role, the Board: 1) coordinates the development of and i recommends new policy and changes to existing policy and procedures for the i decommissioning program; 2) evaluates specific implementation plans; 3) evaluates staff guid9nce for consistent implementation of policies; 4) periodically evaluates program implementation and products; 5) promptly resolves intemal problems raised by Board members;

- and 6) promptly raises program concems, which require management attention, to appropriate NRC managers and non-NRC parties.

Maior Focus The major initial focus of the Board will be on research, regulations development, and case-specific implementation strategies applicable to decommissioning of sites.

Membership The Board's Chair is the Director of DWM. Board members include DWM, NRR, RES, and Regional staff involved in facilities and materials decommissioning. The reason for including

- representatives on the Board from each of these organizations is to improve the overall integration of the decommissioning program.

' in addition to the Board members, other NRC management and staff may be invited by the Board to attend some Board meetings in order to provide information to support specific agenda topics.

Meeting Schedule The Board shall meet p::M;cally at the direction of the Chair.

b

[.

r

STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINAL RULE

" RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR LICENSE TERMINATION" The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards staff, with the support of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, is developing a decommissioning standard review plan (SRP) for submittals related to the final rule on " Radiological Criteria for License Termination" [ License Termination Rule (LTR)]. The goal of the SRP will be to enable Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to evaluate information submitted by licensees in a timely, efficient and consistent manner, to determine if the decommissioning will be conducted such that the public health and safety is protected and the facility can be released in accordance with NRC's requirements. The SRP will provide NRC staff with a description of the contents of specific decommissioning plan modules, as well as evaluation and acceptance criteria for use in i reviewing decommissioning plans and other information submitted by licensees to demonstrate  !

that their facility is suitable for release in accordance with the LTR.

The revised budget for FY 1999 includes 3.0 FTE and $284K in program support for the (

development of the SRP. The FY 2000 budget for this activity is 2.5 FTE and $200K. The SRP l

' will be completed in FY 2000. '

The SRP covers the following areas:

• Dose Modeling

= Final Status Surveys

. Health and Safety Plans

• Financial Assurance

- Restricted Use

. Institutional Controls

. . Alternate Criteria

. As low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA)

The majority of the effort devoted to the SRP will be related to dose modeling. There are a number of significant technical issues that require resolution and guidance development. A list of the issues to be addressed in the modeling section of the SRP is provided below.

1. Assess and Develop the Linkage of the Dose Modeling SRP Guidance with NUREG11549 (a) Assess and develop the linkage of the SRP on dose modeling with the latest version of NUREG/1549, and (b) Assess and determine applicability of the decommissioning framework.

l u

ATTACHMENT 2 I

b

2. Evaluate D&D Screening Approach and Resolve Generic Screening lasues (a) Assess and develop a generic approach for refined screening, (b) Evaluate and determine how probabilistic approach will be used to select default parameters, (c) Evaluate and select default parameters, and (d) Assess and evaluate limitations of D&D for screening.

3. Determine When Alternate Codes Could Be Used for Screening (a) Use of alternate codes for situations arising from D&D limitations, (b) Use of alternate codes for all situations.

4. Develop Criteria for Modifying Parameters in D&D and Other Codes (a) Develop Criteria for Scenario (behavior) Parameters (e.g., occupancy, breathing rate, food ingestion, etc), and (b) Develop criteria for modification of physical parameters.

5. Develop and Establish Default Tables

6. Develop Generic Criteria for Elimination of Pathways to Move Away from Residential Scenario (a) Develop generic criteria for elimination of pathways under unrestricted release conditions (due to site location and physical characteristics of the site),

(b) Develop generic criteria for elimination of pathways under restricted release conditions, and (c) Develop criteria for elimination of pathways due to engineering barriers or structures.

7. Develop Criteria for Acceptance of Site Specific W.Aysis Using Codes Other Than D&D (a) Assess and develop criteria for compatibility of code /model assumptions with site conditions, (b) Acceptability of code /model scenario (critical group),

(c) Acceptability of behavier and metabolic parameters, (d) Acceptability cf physical parameters,

3-(e) Evaluate and determine criteria for code /model uncertainty analysis, and (f) Assess and determine criteria for code /model QA/QC, testing, benchmarking, and verification.

8. Assess and Evaluate Complex Modeling Approaches (a) Assess approaches of complex modeling due to off-site releases, (b) Assess and evaluate complex modeling associated with engineering barriers, (c) Assess and evaluata complex modeling due to restricted releases, and (d) Assess and evaluate complex modeling associated with ALARA analysis (e.g.,

off-site collective public dose impact analysis)..

9. Evaluate a Limited Number of Common Codes Ap' proved by Federal Agencies:

(a) Evaluate aieas of codes applications, merits of uses, and limitations, 1

(b) Provide a generic comparison of code performance, and applicability, and I 1

(c) Provide a generic review of published work on codes benchmarking.

10. Evaluate Test Cases (a) Decommissioning sites, and (b) Former burials.

r

ia n r d 7 OA R, e e e4 S L I

T m ic t ir g h -

I P L e l

r csi nr t f 9 6

V E E y b o o H b o f

au . eI N R T d t iaP.

r R d d no s s e e e es i u e ED d u n ir S t set uia ed IR N e it ue bei cm in UA s r

it cd n l ns R e n r n

o 6a it n

QT ope p o a r EN T ). c it of e RE L uP l a0 t

dt c u SR eee l

O i

n0 uss s s LM T .S w im-4 nnn i t d a LU ia( s e aG it ee oh N

I r

WC e w ncc t t O O iie t

it s

t nD oy ol i i l

ne T r v ocit A D lcmo I

T I cpRe t n

a cb l o

r r t

is o HE S N u ic ed ce iwf i o icN T H nd r f fad t

na l

r e T A aa i

n r e p d n G R g us i

er e s si to led IN R N T

). T cn f a is sr sp e mt u a ie f'

f a .

e u

e u

OL R ot f

o au cm o f it itv e t

a srm )w s s e S E s oo s s I

S(E T sd t

eS d o c u ef l ie ie is s a r S L F una l u s e h Ine b r

P A t P t

n. ie h s la u t

e ed d

n d

• U S u6 M ui o Ta n n ch es a n

a MR U o0 D ot a e o it n t e0 en  : le n un s e e ON T s4 S si Er it a o o i u is is CO EI A

T a

hG h

e am h r T

Oe ep i e r c s nPc nTs v

e v

e D T S PD T Pe r i Nf o D ABd R R A t ON g TI M n rd E

n oa

• l o ez L R i

n it ir f m E o) d ae yi r a n B T i9 nnt go r g

A s8 aia oh o s o sr mM it CE i3 lot u r c I S m3 1 ieer d oA P e p

L N m it Ta n P E oB l irl c

e h t

et e s

io s n

P AIC T cE e 7 a oc u Msa t

c "s i

g S

L N D5( FesN g e p e n T E E e) f o ul a nW s s n

e i n NH M in t

Sa n di e c ie" n v in o E T U l ot e ei2 gce is s

o P it cp etc0 f

MH C airs r ca3 ni iL UT I O pon nt isr Sio0 n im CW O

D E

ui n c t meo an r, "n d2 ad o ls isa sr i m

o c "s DYL aA t e oRn C

N le P nUc or r nf a mta Deee ie EP D .

C co u oo4 s CM E A y M ef o it s0 mM o ",n N

A OD D

I le D S des, s is la3 cd en 0 1iLc 4 e D CI V U m( e ac t oi r0 Pu2 Da 7 G h eu ",e i

I U TROO Ts e t l l a B s 8 ls G ei t r ed R 2i eia G NP N r

uS f oRrop incd F 0i t r r so y n aC 6i l

ue GOS sn I

N h 2 ca dt a NI na et cL 0 e in irB I

I O El P or er1 rF e cM TAT O N I S ot ler o To r t ple o r r IS UI S t

n dPf h ir e ac Pf o XNT I ne iutnes c Pm ngr h y ner EIT C M l am Ges n an o CC o FN A M O

Pe g n

m e riF Bs s r lae l iu t

cd OOFF C ino a Spc Si uL i t e e f

uu nF e

pce TC asd SS A E ca M qf ar s o t

r sn r I I LDS T D AM NEo DAU Mfo InP

9 c cye n

_ n e n d e

e r e g c n s i l

i d es fespi er t

r o

e f s r n u iaP r

e eo vc s P r R P p

o ea t

R e it S R

u mruth S r S s cdn e e r s e d d R c n c n n a n T it l

l ei a o a t

it 6 L

N o iwd o 6 a0 6 O enN 0 0 i 4 n0 P

. 0 0

T n o

ica t so n 4- m- R 4-N it a

ol i n iat a G t aG nD S G OI m n umr D oy n d D T y cb y I

r o i t

ob r o b a b S f n a enrf ed 6 N d c e 0 d e

A I

w m

r o r w mI d e f ad r e 0 4- d R e f o e e . us e s

T e n infg n s r e s r e G r e u e e u sp D e u R s gn a p s au p s E s u ini n s s y u s s u ie eS i T ier is d e a S r s b S e r

F een sr u n. d d

A d n

d n r cio t

. d n t e t n

S a a ess u a uio d u a p r o ot a e o U e e u n e e e en s e e T s s s ov s is si r

e s s A

T iv e

i e

v ePR .

a v e

am p u

a i

v e

S R R hTT7 h R

h re Pt S h

P R

- TBL4 P 2-l e r u o l t F f a

n a g s c o e s n e ig "t v s it c iR t

g n

i n

o n lo t e ne e cF a

i d e io r iam p

ioC l is ic d f ol a d n s

n d0 iu s L a su e or I

a1 B im g R od mi T g Rr d m n g ir is e v N in df e e o it n a n e RnE E

io n nom al r t

a n

c e

a r

e it c eR ol M ao ch Ta ir du "n s D p U gsF im O o Si t nt is n o r ni "

C ippe r a o f ot a 8 w es O m t n f o Cn 0- de h er esd D

E m

o "s ce k eDn i

rU C o k o

o io n r i om f r 8t- a We

",T r

dr e Gic C ee od r o b d

t a l aT Po s ne N Ds n of e f n "s n u ioh A ",c e cs z eni" r 2 s a e i

m ne es it sf t

v D 3 Ro o0 is y H e r e

a s n iA oo I

U 0Li 1 ", itat h 0 la S n s

T Me

",ic t

cs ee Pn o

7le 7 icu2 n "s S e " r lai G 4fiA0 i s t G

8 cy - t Aeit M ic 6 9L 4f Do D ca a 2 L inin l

N eC r 69 oNid drsS N",ls 8 8 o 5t e c la hc ma I

N ul d e e c g un r

d a e 1 ia 1

e "s

- r Ro p ni inBa et t

O eu cF it ond2, z s 4 a n 2 e r

id o Cp d e an r

Tn I

S o r He 0 a t

ut c

/

iu t hcCo r Non0a3 S

I Pf o ner n isL s 0 yic r

L RM Dd Ga ye Gu E S GPto "y iv nt an M o u oiy2 a r o R Rn i d gi r e a mb i

ny / n nnt Ga laar Us Bt t

M it l t aic r O cd e

pce m ot me4, 0 ime i m Rl e r

E u le Ny t e ys sa icei o Se v C r o c as3 le gc f v S d E s or f e 0 r

Po Uy eu r c ar r u losa sd Man t

D InP InDW2 " F NC RN DS PAR NI ,l

_ P P R R S S d d n n a a 6 6 0 0 R .

0 0 T P 4- 4- .

L P R G G R O S D D S T y y y y N b b b b O d d d d I e e e e T d d d d I

S e e e e s

r s s s N e r

e r

e r

e A p p p p R u e u u u T S u S S S R . s . .

e E e is e e s - s s s T u e r u u u F e A u d e e e n u u u S in a n n n U t it it it n e n n n T o s o o o A c i v c c c s

T is e is is i S D R D D D 3

"t n g e n l a

n d ee P 0 r in

• oo iu s s am w 1

G e s em ie er fs is ei s t

n n le o v d r e foce RC r RU e n um t n i n o ds d m nL T eo o ol of r e N

c c o

r e C ia t i ar ef d ar t

d a e s

E d ne PD n a

it iud a e n n M ",t e ma Gf t c

U 6i t a rM e r ya f

" L Si C 4- S r m Ta r t oS ,r O 1 r ",e t as 2 o -

D r fo "s o 3 lc 1 F E esn F 2- u lu g 'C 9 s t

eo 3N n C

N t

ecit Li t c dr a 8l a ReR N Ca Fl A s oA eN g d

n ei c t e P D v ie f

ag vg r r n a "s t cp r n it n eS Din I t U dtu eis Sn ci" la e n0 G eis n ",P ir gio r o7 G

ca oeic e 5 Dnd ins s iiDsd s PrRL 6 3gn e a ki ein N

I n i c ne, r

o m cma N danr a l

en dio a c r Wm o nm0, a

O a deP l

is d u ",c d co4 I

S u s iuo 0 e iue0, yet n Gi m S

I icFe y GS, 0D 5 r GD3 ogm l

M dt d gs M Pn r e r

o om n ad uc 1o f nnt r O Sa g a i t l

ac e yo Ga Ei aia yuaP t

C Spn u gD icrp Ret r

iclaR E Mre a er loy Ui r lovF D NPM Rfo PB NC PEC

t -

%,g

, . UNITED STATts

_[ q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

s wAawinovow,c.c.acess s *... j!_ .

• • ^'"""

l August 14, 1989 l-MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor Acting Executive Director for Operations FRON: Kenneth M. Carr

SUBJECT:

. ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE SYNAR HEARING ON DECOMMISSIONING-Attached is a list of staff action items resulting from the recent Synar hearing. About one-third of the'se cons _i_tments were included in our

• testimony, with meetings and the the rest were discussed at the h_ earing or during my staff.

Please ensure that these connitments are factored into our response to the GA0 report RCED-89-119. " Nuclear Regulation: NRC's Deconnissioning Procedures and Criteria Need to be Strengthened".

1

, a. L Kenneth M. Carr cc: -

ss'ioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss SECY OGC GPA d

150- -00%65

, *J f * \ \'". J f f ,

. .1 :a E ' ,

l ATTACHMENT 4 o___ _ _ ___ _ _

ittachmeng )

ACTION ITEMS FROM SYNAR HEARING ON DECOMMISSIONING 1.

Develop Commission policy on BRC by December 1989 (Preparation and Hearing: COM and RES')

2. Interim cuidance on residual radioactivity standards for decommissioning actions by December 1989 (Testimony: RES);

cavelop final standards within 2 - 21 years (Preparation: RES).

3.

Require licensees to list in cele _dactument all land, buildings, and equipment involved in licensed operations (Testimony: NMSSandNRR).

.4. Revise existing guidance to clarify the scope and rigor of )

verification surveys conducted to ensure that licensees decontaminate

{

facilities in accordance with NRC's guidelines (Testimony: NMSS and RES). {

5. Reconsider Health Physics Society's standards for residual '

I radioactivity if revised to respond to NRC's concerns (Testimony:

RES).

6.

Require licensee monitoring of buried waste sites, as appropriate, and i determine what remedial measures, including removal of such waste  !

offsite,areappropriateattimeoflicensetermination(Testimony:

NMSS).

7. I Submit program to Comission for deconnissioning records retention l (Testimony: NMSSandARM).

l

8. Ensure that sites are decontaminated in accordance with HRC's guidance prior to terminating the license and releasing all or part of a site (Testimony: NMSSandNRR).

9. Revie'w sites terminated since 1965 including review of NRC records to identify sites, contacting licensee,s to supplement inadequate NRC records, and visiting sites to build a record when the existing record is inadequate (Testimony: NMSS).

10. Review and consnent on GA0's report and provide responses to GA0 and theSubcommittee(Testimony: NMSS).

11. Complete review of renewal application and preparation of environmental assessment for 84W Apollo by September 1989 (Preparation: NMS$).

12. Complete review of renewal application and preparation of environmental assessment for 8&W Parks Township in early 19,90, '

(Preparation: NMS$). .

13.

Require facilities groundwater (Preparation: monitoring)at NMSS . BW Apollo and Parks Township 8

9

14. Look into requiring licensees to inform NRC of follow-up surveys and decommissioning after license termination (Hearing: HMSS).

15. Know extent of groundwater contamination at Kerr-McGee Cimmaron before tenninating license and releasing the site (Hearing: NMSS),

16. Consider requiring licensees to meet more stringent standards developed by EPA after a license has been terminated based upon NRC's interim standard (Hearing: NMSSandOGC).

17. Piovide number of onsite burials since 1981 to the Subcommittee (Hearing: NMSS and NRR).

18.

Conduct contractor surveys at GUNC, Pawling, New York and Kerr-McGee, Cushing, Oklahoma to determine extent and significance of

• contamination (Hearir.g: HMSS).

19. Compel cleanu

. NHSS and OGC)p action at West Lake Landfill (Hearing and Preparation:

20. Consider adding a " reopener" clause to license termination decisions to vequire additional decontamination if subsequent

' information indicates additional contamination (Hearing: NMSS and OGC).

21. Explain why 3 out of the 19 facilities reviewed by GA0 did not need to submit decossaissioning plans (Preparation:

NMSS).

~

l

22. Find out whether NRC sponsored the ORNL study cited on Page 15 of the )

GA0 report (Preparation: leiSS).

l Comitments made in preparation for and during the Synar hearing on August 3,1989, as well as in NRC's testimony submitted for the record.

/

l

{

i

-____ __ ---__--- ----- --- A

T E 1 7 L 9 9 P 7 9 9 1 T 9 1 1 9 M 9 9 R O 1 7, 2 9

r e 1 O C , r 9 b ,

P 1 e 1 m 3 n

E E 2 b e e 2 o

R T y o c y A l t

c n e a it c

O u u D J O J D M a A f f

G , f t a

D "n r a o s o n , e d N 2

. i t n yys e A 9 a o Sgur t G 9 d in it a ee e is N

1 n gm g k nt h l

e

)

. f o a gn"s nr it e it iEr h ere I

R 2 s M t A 2 t c e ino cT e nt ni, d a h E 5 7 A n s pi it ue d s v

n a esy g u

H 2 y e ed ed n on e i

e m s m n

oh e o r

L B ic ic kA Cc t

s n ct h A lo L d iS ero os E r n i t N N 5 P r o o ci o rL of d rit gv a d e

O O 5 y f ea t f o n nnd s v I ( g a latr a oEedt r S

I r Rt u - lo npo T 0 e ie r n y Cnia t s

S C ge e E

9 n t ap v o omd e R

A C

9 1 E i e C r inm nu Mu r u

t r

r eot emna r e

G R 3, h l iocso ",S S att cS r e

N t a sD 9 n n Cimsy N ly n c 4 i o w O u i ig im:n 8 s i) nmcie et t C J o t aM a a d

d e lo mio 5 y

- e i I

o r c mc uo o h 9 da S t 8 e k o da i ot ceina Rv r r b sS 3 9 u v Cu S iau es s RR hS t

Cf Rcs 1 /S n M

i s e R" r

n Dmr G l yA c

i e

y y ",e Ea nM olay . m O ic ic ei,o leT Ric e( m n rh d h R lo lo l

ua t

u e Ug g r atuPtee o c Nl o "l

F p p Rn Rs Aa f r ma hl t a

n t io - u r Nt p t G C C la im lae f ad i lt n t ei ad lam A N R R ie n r inc r a ua t eh n e o I

B B FT FL i

DR MM LCaHc m T o r

L f U s S o m E f t.r e R o io i t

S r r n M S d, o g

p r o o E T n ir e f it c

N a ec s T l d d r n A I

N E )

2

(

l las e n aa dr a e M

• t n asd i d h O T )

s ne eieug n t

e I

T I

M 1

( dr ec pi t l a r C ml i

ois cc S t

a M C a un A O R d n c i sfa yt R

'C y) s od t 5 is F C B a e( e irhaN f

O t d ev h O n s el at h ic .

t N A o y n o lcei t od Se n O G y it v o v n ouse) r w si s er I

T ic i ini t cve a p

U D lo t

c t n t

enc 8 is N P a se cen , y r in

_ L A o i n o a4 hi f

O n i d

l opm at d( Py s L o a id r r S

A is r t

iu uyco s o n. h it v e

- E R N O

i s

m l

a u

s eq ee)3 grva a geci t lt i ac ea t

b m

u d sd(

n na . itnunn Ho n I

S m

- e si i i S o is e is ndm rd ea e E C r ic ,ns x ot ee r

d r h

R p p l

e s gio eiat l T o o eaie t

isa G le le intr uia isie cd s nod u

• N v v ql d r f n ci

- O e e eie up vime e r e ec e s C D D Rb o Rvrl i Rer

_ 9 9 T 1 1 D

E 6 9 S

_ L 0, 6, P 9 1 2 e 7 1

h 9

- M 9, r

e r

e t 0 9 O 1 b b to9 9 1

C t m m d 1 1

E s e e 2 u t 8 t en y T g p 9 p di A u e 9 e dt lu D A S 1 S Alis J w .

r i e o le a e v t u

e . n, t in Rs d

n "n r5 nrs is l d u a to6 9 leia P f ner lt u

nfo de0"2 Gf eois Mo l

a P y1 f hi ui s y.

l s

r o e n A Dt t

t aqnre gaz0 nsr2 i

dr t an c hot a l

S h .

gs r

eirid neo e t f

ip oo t

ph 0 o ri o s J n eie h meaua t

l r st nos i r e c e h i l

eiust 2 e_ e u i c dn bd r d e ae om t es oTRmt N kDAn

- R Lt a t

anr ov e t o s t en aah a O d rl r oar a g n la in n ee v dt e enh t

n so nt t

h I

of csui 2, nm e ni t o o r So i t T

C 0 io n

oG d et d mta ea ctela A

enB Roi d 30 s s

it at e t r n a egse mcn la i

eL imud r

ise h

C ",ta Ns r o iuer 7 ica , n2 im e e a r a it e qh eit d ec i R s eni et l

N 4f -

i Ly04 m gn Ce e wav r r Tsab eri enu d e is o t i 6 o b3 o c

i Ric nt ai t

smt c enimp sf 9 N e0 e e ea hl r o egt s2 c D kl l

m r m m it sagt t u epet a la iao i n d r icut t a it in on aR "

, Or o hC icrpn i d gL n a a tr e 2

- NoWF i C

6 1 hf Cf o

f ic oo r i t an o iphl eec aht n

oisv0 se 3- it wes m n eps ppis n et d t e r a r en

,l it a mtic 1r 0 9-t cf li o r a sam x dk ene a m

r oim ma o e Y at r e t k f

r m ei r isruo em id dr v ovic f o eioiit f

o cd r C n c t a esc f a cwd cn f eao E InDRF S oo t Cd LCehTed SRHad is h ne t eodisg e

e pn .

,ta g t

a o9

)

uo

- i si r n u t 1 wta ep i q e d , on r

uo n e d e8 l i

S s sp r o d a

i v t 1 a , flomr e T a ap is s

o r le5 fote s N , e a e p r1 n E

M t em e im r

u d s , Ce e c

sl r m s n n e3 Rsn i l

T aiaa o e a i 1 it Ne o I

wd , c i v 2, c M

d ee t e o tr o t c 1, ml i t

e e mis t

M d p a1 r r s O ir r ef f r 5 e oe u u o o 6 r g1 f t a

C t f

9 s in( infa b ae n 1 n og lc O

f h o

t s o e 'O s t n "r A

g wa ew is s

c n A io te si si e n e n)

G n G iss eio e0 D iri nh im is n) mde ss p2 N t omcu m d e) o01 mt ns ei o(

cm r -

A o) oa i

n e s t a 9 t

n( e . s C(7 e . ci n ot f r i

n L eo go m l

A mdl o in( mO dem "a oi N ed t

n. mg .

a nc s ena avo mA r n gi O mo ei n oG st u n ir e iud nc oo i

s at t c i e I

S n , m r n sio o ir c qd d d ge en d S e ct ree ot r e es t s dt ns ac r a a no E vf i i

l ia g pr isi ae i o , ri R er n r pi t s w

m wn s mc r e t

n s y d et a G iu rod id mr e m o eo op ik e isin N q pa) u b o iv c ip v fr s orv) nm O epn6 u ce Rd e e e s Re Ps ex i ou1 4 Ct or e C Rat ( Sr r L s(

l l

E 1 L 1 P 7 2 M 9 r 9 e O 1 b

C 1 m

E 2 e T y t

p A lu e A D J S N P.

e na

,l Ms s a ar ODa nd e es in mt u ASw ic e lt r a Gen L mr u iaN1. h o ef oqiu es s y.

ri h 8 h et it d9 n s h ne nr t Cn1 ,a t

i e n su t i- r io d e r r i eq ink tn isl etau a l f a

nytgf

,e s

gsw u r uno s yr a in N

eaRicmtd n mh naa a Se nls d iny iso h O eit r iotnthh e

kEi a r f i l cmir wtao e lta I i T ,u sof iu Mt nb apn C qni n ct t

oef d s o A ert ema is e l

s r ud h t

r mo ea c o C aied e ic r nt s t

sdt R sa lb a oi ie s s nsTit Cia r l l N a s

oe e n upri n v nd t

t oili se iCsnfi h

t ec.eper o m

t aEe m

r ni d nl t f eok r n c dl i ut t ia ovo e e

- d uL n a ae weh r 3 aRe a t r Cep s eewi c h er o onthle a h

- l t t l me us d w.

,c d t t mis, t nih la e t

n o d s nf d

idina ac ne ov r

a ic f r

r ou mcr iaar f e et r t e oio f eco s o s w armri f t f

pd c in epais g t

t b s epes eue h h n LSR TrTa e t

STaad is n e t o

t e h n ne t o y S

eb gs t id d d u T

N na irh 1

8 O t s

t 9 E

M se es 1 A .

G )1 L

N T r n e c y 2 R I o ec in b (s O M mi s d n M t l

ea e ea s wlp h)

O er la t 2

C mte f ir u

ie vn g de(2 O oa b ei r o .

A t

e r n sr t sA s io no G eP it s es op D eE s n it is i pe N ny o icm l

sr A eb f o ) amo CO L lcd i e r7 f

9 c RA

- A gp b(

e 1 1 e NG N ino) r e O ir e6 uv1 l

m.

ue fo d it eh ht I

S qe( ne t 3ybm t en S ed . ei t h i E

r rdte s d h m t

h u ws wde R er a em t c u

oenr G id a n d o it no sdi la N

O nnm oar iv c ob r u pe xe d

d e infe Cst e

_ t

- C PS En F r

Table 1. Acceptable Contamination Criteria and Associated Dose Bases in NMSS Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23 Stated Estimated Dose Dose Basis Contamination Criterion Basis + (EDE)+

Average fixed 5000 dpm/100 cm 2 None -13 mrem /yr" U-nat, 135U, 238g ,

and decay products Average fixed 100 dpm/100 cm 2 None -0.2 mrem /yr" 226 Ra, 22dRa, transuranic, etc.

Average ,232 fixed 1000 dpm/100 cm2 None ~28 mrem /yr 8 Th-nat, Th, "S r , etc.

Avg. and max. 0.2-1 mrad /hr None -20 mrem /yr*

external at 1 cm beta-gamma dose U-nat with decay 10 pCi/gm 1 mrad /yr -2.4 to 260 products in soil (lung) mrem /yra 3 mrad /yr -1.8 to 49 (bone) mrem /yr a Depleted Uranium 35 pCi/gm 1 mrad /yr -2.4 to 8 in soil (lung) mrem /yra 3 mrad /yr ~1.8 t'o 18 (bone) ,

mrem /yr a Th-nat with decay 10 pCi/gm 35 mrem /yr -35 to 82 products in soil mrem /yr 8 Enriched Uranium 30 pCi/gm 1 mrad /yr -2.4 to 5 in soil (lung)

~

mrem /yr a 3 mrad /yr -1.8 to 16 (bone) mrem /yr a

/

l V

~

l <

. ATTACHMENT 6 l

L - _

-_ - , _ ._ /

Tcble 1. Acesptablo Contamination Critar.ia and Acacciated Done ,

j BRsom in NMSS Policy and Guidance Directiva FC 83-23 (Continued)

Stated Estimated ' '

Dose Dose Basis Contamination Criterion. Basis + (EDE)+

ERPu in soil 25 pCi/gm None ~15 mrem /yr' 20Am in soil 30 pCi/gm None ~19 to 325 mrem /yr A External radiation 10 uR/hr at None ~24 mrem /yr

^

1 meter above background

+. Dose bases generally expressed in terms of potential dose to l the maximum reasonably exposed individual.

1. . Calculated using draft NUREG/CR-5512. FC 83-23 criteria are based more on technological capabilities (i.e.,. levels of detectability) than on an explicit dose basis.

• . Estimate based on dose at 1 meter for 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> occupancy.

9. Lower estimate represents conversion-or repetition of stated dose basis, while upper estimate based on.RESRAD calculation (default values used for input parameters).

&. Based on RESRAD calculations without and with water pathways '

considered, respectively.

^ i Estimate based on effective, unshielded occup6ncy of about 2360 hours0.0273 days <br />0.656 hours <br />0.0039 weeks <br />8.9798e-4 months <br /> for outside exposure.

t 4

e i

I s

6

- ._. _ __.____.___..._____-______.____.)