View source for IA-96-518, Informs Commission of Staff Analysis of Issues Associated W/ Ensuring Timely Remediation of Sites Listed in Site Decommissioning Mgt Plan.Partially Deleted

{{Adams
| number = ML20138D030
| issue date = 12/31/1991
| title = Informs Commission of Staff Analysis of Issues Associated W/ Ensuring Timely Remediation of Sites Listed in Site Decommissioning Mgt Plan.Partially Deleted
| author name = Taylor J
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = 
| docket = 
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| case reference number = FOIA-96-518
| document report number = SECY-91-342A, SECY-91-342A-R, NUDOCS 9201080066
| package number = ML20137B180
| document type = COMMISSION PAPER, TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
| page count = 63
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.     -_             __ ___ _ _ _ _ _                                                    _ . . _ . . _ _ . _       .
I                                       unnuuo nRc satEss'12'cssissioJ A !Eoat.xts_.outcawist.
E Q
l'......,%.
l                                                          POLICY ISSUE l                                                            (Notation Vote)
December 31. 1991                                                                  SECY-91-342A g:                         The Coentssioners From:                      James M. Taylor Executivc Director for Operations

==Subject:==
                    !$$UE5 A550CIATED WITH ENSURING TIM [LY REMEDIATION OF $1TES LISTED IN THE $1TE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN

==Purpose:==
To inform the Commission of the staff's analysis of issues
* associated with ensuring timely remediation of sites listed in the 5tte Decoemissioning Management Plan (5DNP) and to seek Cosmission approval of staff's preferred approach to                  i resolving these issues.                                                    lI Discussion:                 As a follow-up to SECY 91-342 and in response to the                       i Deceder 3,1991 Staf f Requirements Memoranoum (M911105) on a Noves6er 5,1991 Cosmission meeting, the Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission (NRC) staff has analyzed a variety of issues associated with NRC efforts to ensure timely remediation of SDMP contesinated sites. Issues discussed in the Commission meeting included: (1)whatdoseor concentration limits should be used to evaluate the adequacy              1 I
of cleanup of radiologically contaminated soils, structures.
and equipmentt (2) under what circumstances can NRC license               l i
terstnations at sites with residual contamination be considered final as to the regulatory interests of both the               l NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (3) what               )'
constitutestf,aelycleanupanddoestheNRChaveasufficient public health safety, and thterest basis fer compelling

==Contact:==
Michael F. Weber, MMS $
504-1298                                              prLu a .. -/
[f Robert L. Fonner, OGC 504-1643 j
N71T: SDiSITIVE INFQt%TICH - LDG'11D 10 h1C LNLESS '115: cot [ISSION DENUMDG:S                        i Cm03tf!SE. ,
1Old NdO                              3 21              Y CLIENT 1     RMATION ERMINESObERWISE              %\r4
                                                                                                                        )
15510N D
                     ~~w mm me rreeWit             M$dmt t dd                                                             j Act, exemplions S l
F0IA.Qk-5/)                                                                                                    l

hult: A i l unht.1 LLithi   w+wetMTun LlHITED T                                          SSION DETERMINES OTHERWISE j              ,
l
!                The Cornissioners                                       2 4
timely cleanupt (45 what constitutes adequate site characteritation;LS)whatistheoptimalprocedurefor compelling timely cleanup; and (6) what enforcesunt options and/or financial incentives exist to encourage timely i                                              cleanup.
For each issue, staff has identified alternative approaches l
^
for resolution, and evaluated the strengths and weaknesses 4
of these approaches. The staff's analysis of these issues i
is presented in the enclosure. The staff's preferred i
approaches for resolving each of these tuues are susmarized below. Af ter receipt of Cosmission guidance on the alternative approaches for ensuring timely remediation of SDMP sites, the staff intends to prepare an Action Plan for Coemisslun approval in SECY 91-3428.
j
^
If the Commission endorses the staff's preferred approaches described in this paper, the staff proposes to implement these approaches in a phased manner. . Upon completion of enforcement actions for the first six sites, the staff will t                                                reevaluate the application of the preferred approaches based
 .                                               on experience gained in this first phase. Such a phased i                                                approach is preferable given limited staff resources and i                                                uncertainties associated with the potential outcome of the
,                                                agency's actions. In addition, the phased approach will i                                                allow staff to assess the impact of these actions on the j                                                willingness of SDHP licensees, 50MP site owners, and the i                                                 regulated cosuunity in general to clean up contaminated sites in a tis =1y and ef fective manner.
On the first issue, staff's preferred approach is to utilize, on interia basis, only those existing NRC criteria that are generally consistent with the risk criteria used by EPA fur decontamination of Superfund sitet. .T hat is, the lifetime risk to the maximum reas                                            l willbenogreaterthanabout10'gnablyexposedindividua
                                                                                                 , except for special cases such as ttiose involving radon or when site-specific circumstancesjustifyaljernativecriteriabasedonALARA considerations. The 10~ risk level corresponds to a dose of a few millires annual effective dose per year.
Potential indoor exposures to radon-222 and daughter products In residential structures would be limited by requiring calculated concentrations of radon to be 4 pC1/1 or background levels, whichever is larger. EPA's indoor action level for radon in air in homes is 4 pC1/1 and this corresponds to an ar vai effactive dose equivalent of approximately 400 millirem per year assuming 75 percent occupancy. Special considerations NOTE: ATTO     Y CLIENT INFORMATIO MMISSION DETERMIN         OTHERWISE LIMITE TC NRC UNLESS TH                                                    w

LIMitt                               Cumlbblun utilknints vintnant l            .
l4 i.
The Cosmissioners                                                    3 may also be appropriate for large volumes of low-activity f                                                                                 waste contaminated with thorium 232 and decay products (e.g.,
j                                                                                 credit might be given for deep disposal of thorium wastes with higher activities than would be allowable for l                                                                                 near-surface disposal of these wastes, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.302, and consistent with the risk criteria just i
discussed). In order for the Commission to be aware of the way these criteria will be applied, copies of the proposed
:                                                                                 orders will be provided to the Cosmission at least five j
days prior to issuing the orders.
With respect to the secona issue on ensuring the finality of f
completed decosmissioning actions, staff's preferred approach is to consider NRC decisions to terminate licenses final, so long as licensees comply with all applicable standards in       j
;                                                                                  effect at the time of termination and such standards, if          l implemented with a high degree of assurance that the               '
i                                                                                  standards would be met, result in an effective dose equivalent of no greater than a few milltrem per year.
i                                                                                  Under this approach, there would be no need to have a reopener clause included in an order terminating a license.
)
l The staff's preferred approach for exploring feasible means l                                                                                   for promoting finality in light of potential future EPA          ,
actions is tu: 1)establishandimplementcIvanupcriteria l                                                                                   that are generally consistent with the risk ranges employed by EPA in current and anticipated esivironmental programs; l                                                                                   2) cooperate with EPA in any future rulemakings pursuant to       l the recently agreed to Memorandum of Understanding between i                                                                                                   to establish generally applicable ambient l                                                                                   NRC     and EPA,l standards for cleanup; and 3) encourage EPA to environmenta
,                                                                                    find NRC's decosmissioning program to be adequate. In           J
{                                                                                    addition NRC staff plans to monitor and participate in the i                                                                                    EPAeffortswiththeDepartmentofEnergy*(00E)underan
#                                                                                                                                                    i EPA-DOE Hascrandum of Understanding to develop radiological criteria for decossissioning and has recossended to the Cosmission in SECY-gl-362 to participate in the development of the DOE Prograssatic Environmental Impact Statement for i
environmental restoration and waste management. Collectively, i
these approaches constitute reasonable means for enhancing L                                                                                     the likelihood that future EPA actions will not result in reopening of completed decommissioning actions.
i On the third issue, on timing of cleanup actions, the staff's preferred approach is to require licensees to complete cleanup of nuclear material facilities in about four years af ter operations cease or three years after the issuance of the initial cleanup order. This is generally      ;
consistent with the draf t rulemaking on decossissioning timeliness currently being developed. This approach would NOTE: ATTOR Y CLIENT INFORMATIO         OTHERWISE LIMITE TO NRC UNLESS THE Of941SS10N DETERMIN

I                                                             NOTE: ATTORNEY CLIENT       FOR   10N i
                    -                  LIMITED Th t?lr" THE COMISS ON DETERRtMS ATW~
4
!                     The Cossitssioners                                       4 i
incluee flexibility for licensees to demonstrate good cause
'                                                       to delay cleanup, based on technical feasibility or risk reduction. The staff supports this approach because it:
: 1) alntatzes the possibtitty of the spread of contamination;
: 2) is consistent, in most cases, with the As low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle; 3) addresses pubite interestconcerns;d)1s.provesassurancethatcleanupfunds l                                                       will be available; and 5) provides flextbtitty for l
establishing an alternate cleanup schedule, if a Itcensee can i                                                       demonstrate good cause for the alternative.                                 '
;                                                       With respect to site characterization, the staff intends to employ a hybrid approach, by using existing guidance from i
other program areas, to describe the general types of j                                                        information that are needed to support cleanup 6ctiu.s et
!                                                       the SDMP sites, by developing new draf t guidance on site charactertration specifically tailored to decossissioning actions at materials facilities, and by selective use of independent site characterization and surveys to conf tre and support NRC reviews of licensee site characterization and reerdtation plans and reports. Staff will develop new site characterization guidance in conjunction with evaluation of what mir.1uum site characterization information is needed to support meaningful dose pathways analyses and to evaluate
             ''                                          compliance with interim cleanup criterta. The new guidance can also serve as a template for the site characterization j
content of orders that may be issued to compel timely
              .                                          cleanup and charactertration of the $DNP sites. Untti the i
new guidance is developed, orders could also incorporate relevant portions of documents, by reference, as guidance j
i for acceptable site characterization. $lte characterization i
opproaches will be flexible enough to permit a licensee, or                  i l
other organization, to promptly cleanup contamination l                                          identified in the course of site characterization.
i
               !                                          The staff's preferred approach for the use of enforcement I                                          procedures to compel tinely cleanup includes the following activities: 1) issue immediately effective orders for_a Itatted number of cases (6 cases) where there is an leportant
                }
public health, safety, and interest basis to compel a licensee
:                                          to proceed with cleanup activities in accordance with firm 8                                          schedulest2)acceleratetherulemakingondecosmissioning timeliness by expediting staff review of cossents and
                 !                                         corresponding revisions to the rule; 3) broadly disseminate l                                         the Commission-approved staff action plan to communicate the i
Cosmission's intent to require licensees to cleanup-contaminated sites in a safe and timely mannert 4) continue to work with all 50t1P sites and where needed issue Demands
                  '                                         for Information followed by orders, if necessary, to ri: quire selected SDMp Itcensees to submit decosmissioning and                      ;
NOTE: ATTORMEY CLIENT INFORMATION
                                             ' ! $" T r                      'Mr COMMISSION DETERMINES OTHERWISE N

!                               LIEfitu 1u hkt untths Int LUMMissluh utilknihts ulti aist i               .
t j                                                                                                          5 s   The Cosmissioners recedietton plans along with firm schedules for the l                                                         completion of site characterization and cleanup activities; l                                                         and 5) seek court injunctions or employ financ161 incentives to encourage timely deconsnissioning as described below.
The NRC staff's preferred approach for the use of financial Incentives includes the fo110 wing suite of actions:
l                                                         1) impose civil penalties to encourage financially-qualified i
licensees to comply with NRC orders and requirements;
{
2)grandfathercompleteddecosentssioningactionsfromthe need for addltional cleanup resulting from future NRC requirements or from future EPA envtronmental standards l
'                                                          tssued under the Atomic Energy Act, provided that the decommissioning actions are completed in accordance with all relevant requirements and criteria at the time, and no new information arises. Indicating that additional cleanup tsneeded;and3)issueorderstoimposelicenseson
'                                                          unitcensed persons either responsible for cleanup, or in possession of the site if those persons are unwilling to proceed with timely e.leanup without c Itcense and are unresponsive to staff requests. In addition. injunctions are available under the Atoetc Energy Act to compel compilance with an enforceable requirement. ihe use of single orders or muittple sequential orders to impose requirements will have varying advantages and drawbacks depending on the facts of a particular c.se. Because of the complexities of the 50MP cases and issues, the decision to use single orders or multiple sequential orders should be made by the staff 'sn a case by-case bests.
As stated in SECY 91 342, the FY 1992-1996 Five Year Plan (FTP)allocatedtherequiredresourcestotaplementthe SDMP. The quickened pace of site remediation that would occur under this strategy would free resodrces now being expended on exhortations of licensees and responses to inquiries, allowing them to be applied to review of site charactertrations and remediations. However. issuance of ismediately effective orders establishing deadlines for site remediation and the possible issuance of proposed civil penalties for f ailing to meet a deaditne, could prompt requests for hearings which have not been anticipated in the FTP. If such hearings are requested and granted. 2 full-time equivalent (Fit) staff per year per hearing will likely be required. Although there is no reliable way to judge how mary hearings may be requested, staff would anticipate two such hearing requests from the 5 to 6 Itcensees that would initially receive the orders. MM55 would reallocate existing 50HP FYP resources to provide
: ATTORNEY               IENT INFORMATION 5510N DETE     S OTHE LIMITEp0NRCUNLESSTHEC

             - . - - -                 . - . - - . - . . . -                  . . - . - . _ _ _ - _ - _ . . ~ . - - . _                  - - - . _
: AVIORNEY CLIENT I                              110N LIMITED            NRC UNLESS THE C                     N DETERMINE i-K.,.                                                                                                                                      '
i      .Ydi 6
!      .fThe Comissioners
       ?
)
7                                     support for $WIP hsartngs. 0GC resources for hearing
;                                            support are included in the FYP.
.                  Recoemendation:          The staff recossends that the Cosmission approve the staf f's i
preferred approaches summarized above and discussed in i                                            greater detall in the enclosure, i
Note:                     After the Coemission provides guidance to the staff on the j                                            issues within this paper and its enclosure, the staff will l                                            forward to the Cosmission an Action Plan (SECY-91-3428) for                                           i assuring timely and appropriate decosmissioning actions.
s SECY 91-3428 will be sent to the Commission within 30 days                                            4 e                                            af ter receiving a staff Requirements Memorandus giving
-                                            direction on the issues discussed in this paper (SECY91-342A). SECY-91-3428 will not contain attorney citent information, so that, after Cosmission action on it.
the Cosentssion decision can be made public.                                         If the i
staff's reconnended approach is approved, the staff will provide the Commission, for information, copies of the lamediately effective orders prior to their issuance for the ftrst six sites in the initial phase of the prograu.
i                                            Site specific cleanup criteria vill be included in the orders. The staff will also provide the Commisstun htth estimates of the costs for alternative cleanup criteria.
Coordination:             The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
                                                                                                            -                  /
aus M. T                        or secutive tractor for Operations *

==Enclosure:==

5taff Analysts of Issues Assuciated with Assuring Timely Cleanup l
l MOTE:       ORNEY CLIENT INF0
                                                                                                                        /
10M tIWPr" TO NR                  LESS THE COMMI5510                        ETERMINES           OTHERWit

i NOTE: ATTORNE                         LIENT INFORMATION LIMITED          NRC UNLESS THE                                     ISSION DETERMI         HERNISE 7
Coaunissioners' comuments or consent should be provided directly to SECY by COB Friday, January 24, 1992.
Commission staff office comunents, if any, should be submitted                                                                 l to the Commissioners NLT January 16, 1992, with an information                                                                 l copy to SECY. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and conusent, the Cocunissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
                                                                                                                       .                                l DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC CAA IG REGIONS EDO SECY                                                                                                                         ,
1 i
l l
1 i
i
                                               \
N               :         ATTORNEY CLI     INFORMATION LIMITED TO NR                             LESS THE COMMI                    DETERMINES         ERWISE

t-t i
OTE: ATTORNEY HRC UNLESS IENT INFORMATI COMMISSION _DI
                                                                                              /
CTS OTHERWISE i                               LIMITED staff Analysis of Issues Associated with                                    ;
compelling Timely cleanup of sites Listed in                                  l i
NRC's site Decommissioning Management Plan (8DNP) i December 31, 1991
: 1.              Introduction
.          As a follow-up to SECY 91-342, the Nuclear Regulatory commission
!          (NRC) staff has analysed issues associated with NRC efforts to l
compel timely remediation of contaminated sites listed in the
!          SDMP.                     These issues includet (1) what dose or contamination j          limits should be used to evaluate the adequacy of cleanup of i
radiologically contaminated soils, structures, and equipment, j          (2) under sites                 withwhat    circumstances residual              can NRC contamination          license terminations be considered         final, both        at to
!          NRC regulatory interests and with respect to the Environmental Protecticn Agency (EPA), (3) what constitutes timely cleanup and                                           i does the NRC have a sufficient public health, safety, and                                                  l Interest basis for compelling timely cleanup, (4) what constitutes adequate site characterisation, (5) what is the                                                l optimal procedure for compelling timely cleanup, and (6) what enforcement options and/or financial incentives exist to encourage timely cleanup. For each issue, staff has identified alternative approaches for resolution and evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches.
: 2.               Near-Tern cleanuo criteria As described in SECY 91-342, staff has been using a patchwork of remediation criteria to define acceptable levels for cleanup of radioactive contamination. However, these criteria are not currently binding on licensees and are generally not consistent with one another or with comparable re p irements being established and imposed by other agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).                      In addition, the scientific basis for some of the criteria established in the 1970s and early 1980s is out of date.                    Further, some of the criteria are only indirectly related to the protection of the public health and safety and the environment.
In the mid-1980s, staff. initiated development of the technical basis to support a rulemaking to codify                        final cleanup standards for radiological contamination. This rulemaking was an outgrowth of the NRC's long-ters effort to establish decommissioning          However, the requirements (53 FR 24018 June 27, 1988).
rulemaking to establish radiological criteria for decommissioning may not be completed for another two years or so, posing the problem of what criteria should the NRC use in the interim to determine whether sites have been sufficiently decontaminated so that they may be released for unrestricted use.
Enclosure

L NOTE:            RNEY CLIE                  NFORMATION                              !
UNLESS THE                        ISSION DI      OTHERWISE LIMITED To In preparing this paper, the staff identified the full rango of existing cleanup criteria and the strengths and voaknessos                                                              ,
associated with these criteria, estimated the dose or radiological risk associated with the critoria, evaluated alternative approaches for establishing near-term cleanup criteria, and formulated a preferred approach for guiding sito                                                          .
cleanup until the rulemaking on radiological criteria for l
l             decommissioning is completed. This paper discussos the key                                                                '
I             issues associated with implomontation of interim cleanup l             criteria.                      The Commission should note, however, that the same issues will also be addressed in the "Rulemaking on Radiological                                                         i j
criteria for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities."                                           As 1991 SRM, staff requested by the Commission in a December 4, recommendations on how to proceed with this rulemaking will be forwarded to the Commission shortly.
2.1 Existing NRC Cleanup Criteria and Related Dose Estimatos 2.1.1 NRC Cleanup Criteria                                                                                               1 l
NRC has developed or used the criteria in the following references for guiding the cleanup of contaminated soils, structures, and equipment for unrestricted uset
: 1. Termination of Byeroduct. Source, and Soccial Nuclear MaterigLJLicenses, Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23, November 4, 1983: Termination of onoratina Licenses for Huelear Reactors, Regulatory Guide 1.s6, June 1974 -- These two documents provide criteria in terms of fixed and removable contamination and acceptable radiation exposures associated with beta- and gamma-emitting surface                                                  .
contamination.      The FC 83-23 guidance also provides acceptable volumetric concentrations of urantum, thorium, americium and plutonium in soil. The uranium and thorium criteria are identical to the option 1 position in                         the Regulatory Branch Technical Position described in item 2.
cuide 1.s6 has been combined with a S uR/hr at 1 meter external dose criterion for terminating licenses for a number of research reactor facilities.
: 2. Disposal or onsite Storace of Thorium and Uranium Wastes from Past onorations, Branch Technical Position, October 23, 1981, 46 EB S2061 -- This. document provides acceptable activity concentrations of uranium and thotium (with and without decay products) in soil under a variety of conditions.
: 3. National Primary Drinkina Water Roaulations, 40 CFR Part 141 -- This EPA regulation provides maximum contaminant l
3

i i
I-                 '
LIMITCD N
NRC UNLESS THE TToRNEY CLI       INFORMATION ISSION  DIR         OTHERWISE j'
1 l
limits for radionuclides in public drinking water, which can i                                               be extended to apply as acceptable activity concentrations in groundwater and surface water (see FC 43-23). Drinking i
1 water standards have been established for radium-226/228,
!                                               gross-alpha particle emissions, and man-made radionuclides
'                                               emitting beta particles and photons. The Environmental Protection Agency recently (July 18, 1991) proposed adding i
i standards for uranium and radon and revising the existing standards for radium and gross-alpha (56 IB 33050).
: 4.          The Environmental Protection Agency's Radiation Dose l                                               Guidelines for Protection Against Transuranium Elements
,                                                Present in the Environment as a Result of Unplanned
.                                                Contamination (42 IB 60956; November 30,.1977). This
!                                               document provides radiation dose guidelines recommended by EPA for acceptable levels of transuranium elements
'                                                contamination in soil.
;                                2.1.2 Doses Associated with Existing NRC Criteria i
i                                                                   NMSS Policy and Guidance Directive FC 43-23 l                                NMSS Policy and Guidance Directive FC 53-23 provides guidelines 1
:                                 for acceptable average and maximum surface contamination levels for a wide variety of radionuclides. It also provides average l
and maximum radiation levels of 0.2 and 1.0Inmillirad                                                         per hour at addition, the 1 centimeter for beta- and gamma-emitters.
i Directive provides an acceptable external radiation exposure rate for soil contamination of 10 microroentgen above background per hour at 1 meter. An enclosure to the Directive lists acceptable
;                                 soil contamination levels based on the 1981 Branch Technical j                                 Position and includes concentration values for plutonium and
 ;                                americium compounds. For byproduct materials, th9 Directive states that acceptable soil concentration levels will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The criteria in FC 43-21 and their associated doses are summarized in Table 1. The riabe hand j
column indicates " dose bases" calculated using the computer code
;                                 RESRAD that contains contemporary dosimetry and exposure i                                  assumptions.
j                                                                                                                      3 i

i i
NOTE:         ATTORN               CLIENT INFORMAT - '
l'''                                                                              HE COMMISSIC                               CTS OTHERWISE LIMI               TO NRC UNLES$
l                                                                       _
Table 1. Acceptable Contamination Criteria and Associated Dose i                        Bases in HMSS Policy and Guidance Directive FC 33-23
!                                                                                                                    Stated             Estimated l-                                                                                                                    Dose              Dose Basis l                                                                                                                    Basin +               fEDE)+
contamination                             criterion 5000 dps/100 cm'                                  None           -13 mrem /yr 8 l:                       Average fixed U-nat, b5U, SU ,
and decay products 100 dpa/100 co'                                   Hons           -0.2 ares /yr' g eragg fixed transuranics, etc.
fixed             1000 dps/100 cm'                                  None           -28 ares /yr' Average,suTh.
Th-nat,
                         # 8r, ote.
0.2-1 mrad /hr                                    Hone           -20 mres/yr*
Avg. and max.
external                                 at 1 cm beta-gamma dose U-nat with decay                          10 pC1/gm                                         1 mrad /yr      -2.4 to 260 (lung)           ares /yra products in soil                                                                            3 mrad /yr      -1.s to 49 (bone)           ares /yra Depleted Uranium                          35 pC1/gm                                         1 mrad /yr      -2.4 to e (lung)            ares /yra in soil                                                                                     3 mrad /yr      -1.5-to is (bone)     ,
mres/yr8 10 pcl/gm                                         35 ares /yr     -35 to 32 Th-nat with decay                                                                                             ares /yra products in soll 30 pC1/gm                                          1 mrad /yr      -2.4 to 5 Enriched Uranium                                                                            (lung)           ares /yra      .
in soll                                                                                     3 mrad /yr      -1.s to 16 (bone)           ares /yra     l l
l 4

l l
NOT             ATTORNEY CLI T'INFORMATION
}                                                          ISSION DIRE                 OTilERWISE j                  LIMITED TO             C UNLESS T I Table 1. Acceptable contamination criteria and Associated. Dose Bases in NHSS Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23 (Continued) i i                                                                        Stated              Estimated Dose             Dose Basis i
Basin +                    fEDEl+
j          contamination                    criterion Hone              -15 mrem /yra                      l I"Pu in soil                     25 pC1/gm                                                                         )
30 pcl/gm                    None              -19 to 325                         l
!          8"An in soil                                                                     ares /yr'                         ;
i
* None              -24mram/yr
;          External radiation lo uR/hr at 1 meter above i                                           background                                                                        ;
           +. Dose bases generally expressed in terms of potential dose to                                                i J
!          the maximum reasonably exposed individual.
: 8. Calculated using draft NUREC/CR-5512.                          FC 43-23 criteria are                        i I
based more on technological capabilities (i.e., levels of detectability) than on an explicit dose basis.
I
            *. Estimate based on dose at 1 meter for 2000 hour 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).                                                                       :
l           4. Based on RESRAD calculations without and with water pathunys considered, respectively.
Estimate based on effective, unshielded occup&ncy of about 2360 hours for outside exposure.
!                                                                                                                             l i
l l
i

i i                                                                                                l i
i
          .                                                                                    i l
NOTE            RHEY CL      INroRMAT l                                                           MMISSION   DI     S OTHERWISE LIMITED TO N            UNLESS THE i
i                                              Regulatory Guide 1.86 NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.86 in 1974.                   This guide provides l
the same basis for the acceptable surface contamination levels
;           described in Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23. When i           combined with an exposure rate limit of SuR/hr above background i           at 1 meter, this            guide has been used in decommissioning and
,           terminating licenses for a number of research reactors. The'5 i
u?/hr criterion for indoor contamination corresponds to an annual
!           whole body dose of about 10 millirem for an assumed indoor i           occupancy period of 2000 hours per year.
Dranch Technical Position (BTP) on Disposal or Storage l                                        of Thorium and Uranium Wastes
!           On October 20, 1981, NRC published this technical position (46 EB j            52061) to provide guidance on decommissioning and cleanup of fuel                   ;
;            cycle and other facilities contaminated with relatively large i
volumes of wastes with low activity concentrations of uranium and
;            thorium. In combination with the disposal provisions in 10 CFR j            20.302, the technical. position provides four " options" for i            disposal of uranium and thorium wastes, which vary in activity Of                   l concentration and corresponding potential radiological dose.
j            the four options, NRC staff has ceased permitting the use of i            options J and 4 because these options require deed restrictions j             that would be inconsistent with the commission's regulations that require sites to be cleaned up so that they may be released for unrestricted use.
i Under Option 1 of the Branch Technical Position, licensees may dispose of wastes containing natural thorium, depleted or enriched uranium, and natural uranium without restrictions for burial method or post-termination land use. The activity concentrations for this option are consistent with the levels identified in Policy and Guidance Directive FC 43-23. The maximum activity concentration for natural uranium is based on EPA standards for cleanup and stabilisation of uranium mill tallings for "Ra    8 (5 pC1/g) including its decay products (42 EB 2556-2563).         The     activity concentrations for natural thorium and depleted or enriched uranium are based on internal radiation dose guidelines recommended by EPA for protection against transuranium elements present in the environment As           as shown a result of unplanned in Table 1, contamination (42 EB 60956-60959).
committed doses were expected to be on the order of one millirad per year to the lung or three             millirad per year to the bone from inhalation and ingestion. The resulting concentrations would also limit external exposures to less than 10 microroentgens per hour above background. However, Option 1 concentrations do not 6

l l
l
}          .
NOTE:    A      RNEY CLIEN                      FORMAT 101 LIMITED TO NRC          SS THE CO ISSION                            S OTHERWISE i
1 consider potential radiological exposures from ingestion of l
groundwater contaminated by uranium, thorium, or decay products because the contaminated material was assumod to be eroded away l
j            betore significant groundwater contamination could occur.
i j-           Under option 2 of the 1981 STP, concentrations of natural thorium j            and depleted or enriched uranium are required to be buried under prescribed conditions without requiring land use restrictions after license termination. Disposals performed under option 2 j
j            guidelines must be covered by four foot or more of clean soil.
!            Acceptable activity concentrations for burial were calculated i            based on the criteria that (1) radiation doses to members of the l
public should not exceed option 1 levels when the waste is buried j            in an approved manner under routine exposure conditions, and (2)                                4 radiation doses to an inadvertent intruder should not exceed 170                                '
sillirems to a critical organ or whole body, using contemporary dose conversion factors and exposure pathways. The option 2 concentration levels were derived assuming that the decay products of enriched and depleted uranium were not prosent at the                               ,
tine of disposal because the decay products are removed in                                      j processing the uranium. Significant ingrowth of the decay products requires more than one thousand years and has not been routinely considered in assessing the acceptability of the                                      ,
disposals under option 2 even though potential doses P.ay increaso                              l considerably with time (i.e., beyond 10,000 years).
In addition, topographical, geological, meteorological, and hydrological characteristics of the disposal site must be considered separately to ensure that potential doses via groundwater ingestion are acceptably low. Within the last several months, NRC staff has interpreted " acceptably low" as a few millirem per year consistent with the stated dose basis for the option 1 concentration values.                                           ,
                                                                                             ~
Table 2 lists the option 2 concentrations along with their stated dose bases and estimated current dose bases calculated using the RESRAD computer code that contains contemporary dosimetry and exposure assumptions. It should be noted that the use of RESRAD and Lts default parameter assumptions may not be appropriate for specmfic regulatory decisions depending on site conditions and characteristics which may render RESRAD too conservative or nonconservative.
4 7
   .    --.    . ~    . -          .   -. .     -      --               .-       . - .         ,_ -- - .-,

l l.
!                                      NOTE:                          RHEY CLIENT     ORMATIO LIMITED TO HRC                              LESS THE C        SSION         S OTHERWISE l
i i          Table 2. Concentrations and Dose Bases for Option 2 of the 1981 j          Branch Technical Position (BTP).
Stated               Estimated
+
Dose             Dose             Basis contamination                              criterion                     Basis                    fEDE) l 1
l          Natural Thorium                            50 pCi/gm                     170 mrom/yr       170 - 420 mrom/yr j
1 Depleted Uranium                           100 pC1/gm                    170 mrom/yr       5 - 50 j
l (soluble)                    (bono)            ares /yr 20 - 68 300 pC1/gm                    170 mrom/yr (insoluble)                  (lung)            arem/yr l
1
!          Enriched Uranium                            100 pC1/gm                   170 ares /yr      5 - 52 (soluble)                    (bone)            aren/yr j                                                      250 pC1/gm                   170 ares /yr       20 - 42 j                                                      (insoluble)                  (lung)            ares /yr 1
EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Standards for Radionuclides NRC staff has applied EPA's National Primary Drinking Water standards on a case-by-case basis to the cleanup and decommissioning of contaminated sites to ensure adequate protection of groundwater and surface water resources. These standards could be applied as criteria for limiting radiation exposures via the ingestion pathway. This approach is explicitly                                                    !
recognized in HMSS Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23. EPA promulgated interim drinking water standards for *I                                  radionuclides in 1976 at 40 CFR 141.15 and 141.16 for combined N'Ra/ '8Ra (5 pcl/1), gross-alpha particle activity (15 pC1/1, excluding redon and uranium), and beta particle and photon emitters (4 mres/yr for " man-made" radionuclides).                                 The standards are applicable to public drinking water systems and are enforced at the tap.
Although they are not strictly applicable to the protection of groundwater and surface water resources, NRC and other agencies (including EPA and States) have applied these standards as objectives and guides for water resource protection. This                                                           ,
extension of the applicability of the drinking water standards                                                     !
has been justified. based on the paucity of other suitable criteria for water resource protection and on the health and technological feasibility basis of the drinking water standards.
This approach is also consistent with EPA policy for groundwater protection.           In recent years, EPA has actually adopted the drinking water standards for groundwater and surface water 8
l

N       V ATTORNEY C                                RMATI              '
LIMITED 79-                         C UNLESS Tilt C0KMISS10H D                      CTS OTilERWISE l                protection purposes at uranium mill tailings sites (40 CFR Part                                              1 l
192, Subparts D and E and proposed Subparts A - C).
l The dose associated with the standard for bota and photon                                                     ,
j                omitters is 4 mrom/yr. Assuming ingestion of 2 liters of                                                      l drinking water per day over a 50-year period, the dose associated with the 5 pC1/1 standard for N'Ra would be about 5 mrom/yr using l
the dose conversion factors provided in EPA's Federal Guidance Roport No. 11.                          It is difficult to convert the 15 pCi/1 standard
!                for_ gross-alpha particle activity to dose because gross-alpha is a scrooning paramoter for a variety of alpha-emitting radionuclidos and the dose is a function of the energy and j
characteristics of the alpha docay and biological parameters for i                cach radjonuclide.
i I
I                On July 18, 1991, EPA proposed an increase in the drinking water standard for radium from 5 pCi/1 combined N'Ra/N8Ra to 20 pC1/1 l
i               for each radionuclide (56 EB 33050). EPA has also proposed in the same rulemaking new drinking water standards for uranium (20 j                ug/1 or 30 pC1/1) and for radon-222 (300 pC1/1). The values of the bota/ photon and gross-alpha standards would remain the sano, except that the gross-alpha standard would now excludo alpha activity contributed by radium-226. NRC's October 16, 1991 comments to EPA on the proposed rulosaking raised significant                                                 !
concerns aoout the proposed revisions to the drinking water                                                   l standards, including ambiguity associated with the documented risk and radiological dose assessments that support the proposed drinking water standards; the need for EPA to assess indirect impacts of the new drinking water standards caused by their applications to other program areas (e.g., decommissioning and wasto management): and the need for guidance on how to apply the uraniun standard in situations where the uranium has been depleted or enriched. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainity associated with the content of the proposed drinking water standards.
2.2      Limitations Associated with Existing Cleanup Criteria NRC's implementation of this patchwork of guidance documents and standards for cleanup would generally be expected to limit public exposures from residual contamination to acceptably low levels (i.e.,-in most cases, well below the 100 millirem per year limit                                           !
in 10 CFR 20.1301). One specific exception to this level of                                                 l protection would be for thorium contaminated sites under options                                            i
                                                                                                                              ~
                 .1 and 2 of the 1981 BTP where long-term exposures to the contaminated soil may result in doses approaching or in excess of                                           .
the public doso limit. A second exception would be for any sites                                            l contaminated with uranium-238 in equilibrium with its decay products at option l' concentration levels.
I l
9

I
     ~
OTE:  ATTORNEY SL ENT INFORMAT LIMITEVTO NRC UNLESS THC COMMISSION DIRECTS OTHERWISE l
i l .
i At sites contaminated with uranium or thorium and their decay l        products, exposure to radon (32i;Rn and 220 Rn)      ar.d its decay a
products or direct external exposures may cause human exposures well in excess of the dose and risk criteria discussed previously.          It is virtually impossible to demonstrate that residual levels of uranium (radium) and thorium will be reduced to levels which produce doses resulting from either indoor exposure to radon or direct exposures that are less than a few millirem per year fe; a variety of technical reasons including l        the natural abundance of thorium and uranium-radium (radon), and i        variations caeaed by soil and construction characteristics.              For l        example, EPT.'s indoor action level for radon in air in homes (i.e., 4 pCi/1 from all sources) corresponds to an annual effective dose equivalent of approximately 400 millirem per year assuming 75% occupancy (based on EPA Radon Reference Manual, EPA 520/1-87-20, September 1987). This exposure corresponds to an j        annual risk of premature cancer mortality of about 10'' and a 70-j        year lifetime risk of about 10'2            Therefore, special consideration must be given t6 the control and prevention of potential future exposures to radon in indoor air that may be associated with residual contamination. HRC could establish EPA's 4 pCi/l action level for radon in indoor air or projected background level as the basis for deriving cleanup criteria for the parent radionuclides that will ultimately yield radon.
Alternative approachos include adoption of EPA's uranium mill 10

N          : ATTORNEY            FORMATI LIMITED                              NRC UNLESS Tile COMMISSION          CTS OTHERWISE t
'                                     tailings cleanup standards from 40 CFR Part 192 (5 pCi/g of N'Ra in the upper 15 cm of soil) or exclusion of potential dosos l
associated with radon exposures in setting cleanup criteria.
l For thorium contaminated sites, controlling thorium contamination to a level that corresponds to a cancer mortality of about 10 4 4
lifetime risk could result in thorium concentrations at or below typical background levels. The elevated risk associated with thorium is caused by gamma radiation exposure associated with thorium decay products. An alternative approach would includo                                                      j adoption of EPA's standard for the management of thorium                                                           !
byproduct material from Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 192 (based on 5 pCi/g of Ra-228 in the upper 15 cm of soil).
                                     -2.3 other Potential Criteria for Consideration                                                                      l In addition to the aforementioned cleanup critoria which have                                                      l been used by the NRC, two other possible bases exist for                                                            i establishing cleanup criteria. First, the public dose limit in                                                     l the revised 10 CFR Part 20 (100 milliram per yeart 20.1301) could                                                  !
serve as the basis for establishing cleanup criteria. If the public dose limit was used to guide cleanup of contaminated soll, the licensee would also have to demonstrate how the cleanup program satisfies the ALARA requirement in accordance with 10 CFR                                                  l 20.1101(b), as would be the case in all situations except where                                                    ;
the cleanup criteria have been based on ALARA consideration.
With consideration of ALARA provisions, direct application of Part 20 for site cleanup would be expected to achieve exposure levels much lower than 100 millirem per year, because of the goneral ease of using readily available technology to achieve lower dose levels for most of the contamination at the SDMP sites.
A second possibility is to use total individual risk.of excess                                                    ,
cancer (incidence or-mortality) as the basis for establishing cleanup criteria.                                             Currently, EPA policy at Superfund sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA) is to consider remedial alternatives capable of reducing total individual.
carcinogenic risk to the hypothetical, reasonable maximum exposed                                               4 individual from hazardous chemicals                                            to levels within about -
a 10 to 10** lifetime risk range. Typically, remedial action at sites that could impact large populat;,ons are focused on attaining cleanups so that individual risks are at the 10** lifetime level.
For other sites,                                           remedial actions resulting in a lifetime risk level about 10 4
have been selected.      EPA has selected cleanup 4
criteria based on risk levels above                                          the 10 risk level for a limited number of site cleanups (e.g., the 25 millirem per year standard se).ected for tho Maxey Flats low-level radioactive waste 11

l 1
I 1
        -             -                   NOTE:              RNEY CLI              NPORMATI LIMITED TO N        UNLESS THE                  ISSIO                   CTS OTHERWISE l
i
  ;                     disposal site).      Other Federal and State agencies have also used i                       risk-based guidelinos in the implementation of their regulatory                                     j
'                       policies. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, has                                     t l
applied a 10** lifetime risk-based guideline in connection with                                     i d                       the regulation of animal drugs, food contaminants, and trace                                        (
j                       constituents in some feod additives. If 10** and 10** lif etime                                     !
J                       risk lovels are converted into continuous annual radiation
,1 levels, " equivalent risk" annual dosos can be calculated to range i                       from about 3 millirem to 30 prem per year total effectivo doso j                       equivalent, a
2.4 Preferred Approach i
Until the rulomaking to establish radiological criteria for i
!                       decommissioning has been completed, staff's preferred approach is                                   I
;                       to utilize only those existing NRC criteria that are generally consistent with the risk criteria used by EPA for decontamination                                   !
of Superfund sitos. That is, the lifetime risk to the maximum reasonably exposed individual will be no greater than about 104,
;                       except for special cases such as those involving radon or when site-specific circumstances justify alternative critoria based on                                   ,
1                       ALARA considerations. These criteria would be implemented by                                        l issuing site-specific orders or by having licensees commit to the criteria in decommissioning plans and confirming this commitment                                    i
;                       by order or license condition. Potential indoor exposures to i                        radon-222 and daughter products in residential structures would
;                       bo limited by requiring calculated concentrations of radon not to                                   !
>                        exceed 4 pC1/1 or background level, whichever is larger. Special i
considerations may also be appropriate for large volumes of low                                    l
;.                       activity waste contaminated with thorium-232 and decay products                                    :
(e.g., credit may be given for alternative disposal technologies                                  i i                        such as deep disposal of thorium wastes with higher activities                                     i than would be allowable for near-surface disposal in accordance
,                        with 10 CFR 20.302 and consistent with the risk criteria
!                        discussed above).
1 i                        Application of this approach would generally ensure that the                                       ,
maximum reasonably exposed individual dose corresponds to the foW                                  l
:                        millirem per year value typically associated with current NRC site-specific cleanup actions, except for doses associated with radon exposure.      For most radionuclides, the technologies required to achieve these levels areItreadily                              available and can be would also be numerically implemented at a reasonable cost.
consistent with EPA's drinking water standards. This approach would result in remedial actions for radioactivo1y contaminated sitos that are consistent, on a risk basis, with actions required by EPA to cleanup Superfund (e.g., hazardous waste) sites.
Because the models and parameters used to convert residual radioactivity into deae and risk would be expected tv be
;                                                                           12 4
i

     . . - -          .    ~ - - - . - . - . . _ . -.                        =.-.   - . - -. - . - .                  _ - - . _ .
l l*
* LIMITED TO N NOTE:            ORNEY CLIENT I NLESS THE COMM              ON DIR ATION OTHERWISE
{
I            reasonably conservativo in most casos, it is likely that cleanup in accordance with these criteria would satisfy any future NRC requirements and EPA environmental standards at similar risk
!            levels. Consequently, cleanup to achieve compliance with these critoria would promote finality of the decommissioning action, as described in the next section.
Selection of criteria based on this " risk range" should also facilitate timely development of site characterization plans, site charactorizatiun reports and remedial action plans by establishing an objective and specific targot value for designing and judging the adequacy of site cleanup actions. For examplo, the criteria would provide a clear basis for developing site characterization plans and determining whether site cleanup has been adequate. Selection of the target value would help licenseos address background characterizations and selection of                                                         i analytical sensitivities of field and laboratory techniques                                                             I needed to support site characterization.
Given the uncertainties associated with indoor radon exposures, a projected background or a 4 pCi/1 concentration value, whichever                                                        l is larger, in potential future residential structures has been                                                         j incorporated into the preferred approach. The 4 pC1/1                                    ~
concentration is EPA's current action level for ra on in indoor                                                         l air. This. approach has been chosen in recognition that indoor                                                       !
radon contarination can result from elevated background                                                                l concentrations of uranium and radium in soil and can span a wide range depending on site and construction characteristics.
Finally, for large volumes of low-activity soils contaminated with thorium, staff's preferred approach is to allow case-by-case considerations of acceptable cleanup criteria.                                         such evaluations would consider EPA's regulations in Subpart E of 40 CFR 192,
              " Standards for Management of Thorium Byproduct Materials," the natural background levels for thorium, and the specific method of disposal, including special disposal measures such as deep disposal. Site cleanup criteria for soils contaminated with thorium would be established through site-specific ALARA evaluations.
3.0   Ein @
As oizgi-!4d in SECY 91-334, finality of decommissioning is one of the prin. pal policy issues associated with the cleanup of contaminated sites. The issue introduces uncertainty into the cleanup process as to whether or not years after a licensee cleans up a site in accordance with applicable criteria and the license is terminated, HRC or another regulatory agency (e.g.,
EPA) could require further decontamination as a result of more 13 s

j J
l NOT                     .              ATTORNEY CLIE                          NPORMAT LIMITED TO                          C UNLESS TH                                             ISSION       CTS OTHERWISE 1                   stringent future cleanup standards.                                                                      The potential lack of j                   finality associated with decommissioning actions today; in the i
absence of EPA and NRC regulations establishing cleanup criteria, i                   is seen by some licensees as a strong disincentive to undertake j                   cleanup given the large expense and uncertainties associated with
!                   future cleanup actions.                                                            The need for reopener clauses in license
 ;                  termination docinions was stressed by Congressman Synar in the August 1989 hearing with the House Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources and in the 1989 CAO report entitled NRC's Decommissionina Procedure 3 and Criteria Need to be Strenathened, GAO/RCED-89-119.
1 j                   In a January 31, 1990 Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), the
;                   commission directed the taff to " provide general notice to l
licensees that additional cleanup may be necessary to comply with j                   standards promulgated at a future date by (the Environmental j                   Protection Agency)" as part of a forthcoming Federal Register j                   notice on the NRC rulemaking on radiological criteria for l                   decommissioning.                             In the interim before the NRC requirements are in place, the Commission directed the staff to " provide notice to licensees that terminated licenses may be recalled and additional cleanup required if forthcoming NRC requirements indicate a need
!                   for further cleanup."                                                    The Commission also addressed the
!                   corresponding situation where EPA ptomulgates more stringent
!                   standards. The purpose of the reopener notice is to preserve i                   commission authority to compel more work if future standards require more cleanup for health and environmental reasons.
l                                                                                                                                              -_.
i r
1 i
l I
(-
i The Boven case entailed a primary retroactive rule that altered j                   the past consequences of past actions (an NRC analog to the rule i                    in Boven would be a rule retro' actively increasing license fees for a prior fiscal ywar).                                                                     There is room in the case to argue i                    that gles which only alter the future consequences                                                                       of past
;                    actionF may not be subject to Boven.                                                                      Future cleanup standards j                    could fall into this so-called " secondary" retroactivity category                                                                       .
j if they do not change the legality of past actions (ggg, Id                                                                         at
 !                '                                                                                                     14 I

I ATTORNEY CLIE!
N                           NFORMATI
;                                        LIMITED TO                                         UNLESS Tile C    SION D                    OTHERWISE J
l i
i g
b i
l i
i i
1                                                                                                                                                                    -
I i
l                                                                                                                                                                ,'
i

l I
             '""' "                     JIIE"EE14% Ids"MFJ"ory,,,,,,
l l
f
!                                                                                                               1 5
l l
16
  -w w w ewe  -w -  w wwwm --e v we----e  mw ww*w '
u+wmr-  'e w www-m- -- w w ur e a-w re--m-- w  -'e = 'm

1 J
HOT                     ATTORNEY          NT INF                       TION LIMITED TO                                      C UNLESS                       ISS                          ECTS OTHERWISE f                                                                                             '-
3 1
i                                                                                                                                                                                              i e
l 1
]
I l                                                                                                                                                                                     M l                                       3.4             Promoting Finality with EPA i
Staff also has considered a variety of approaches to enhance the                                                                                       i likelihood that future EPA actions will not require reopening of j                                       decommissioning actions that have been completed in accordance
:                                       with existing standards and cleanup criteria.                                                                                  These approaches
!                                       include the'following:
i
;                                                        1.            NRC could establish and implement near-term criteria for 4                                                        cleanups that are consistent with existing and anticipated                                                                            ;
l                                                        future EPA radiological criteria for decommissioning. In a recent EPA response to NRC, Richard Guimond, Deputy l
4 Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency l
Response, indicated that EPA's development of radiological criteria for decommissioning.would be consistant with the l
risk framework employed by EPA in the hazardous waste and                                                                             ,
i environmental cleanup programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,,and Liability Act (CERCLA). In these programs, EPA routinely requires that environmental cleanup actions limit lifetime risks to the maximum reasonably exposed-individual to no more than about 10 4 to 104                                      These risk levels are also generally j                                                         consistent with the risk framework used by EPA in regulating air emissions of hazardous air pollutants under the clean i
Air Act, as reflected in the radionuclide National Emission in Subparts
{                                                         Standards                             for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPg) k under the I, T, and W of 40 CFR Part 61. The risk framewor                                                                                     !
j i                                                    J-@ESHAPs is intended to limit the hypothetical maximum j                                                         exposed                            individual to a lifetime risk of no abre than about 4 and to provide protection to the greatest number Bf
]
10 i
persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no
  }
j                                                                                                                               17 4
f i
1

i 4                             .
NOT                      TTORNEY CL       T INFO     N LIMITED TQ-NfC UNLESS TH                                  KMISSION  RECTS OTHERWISE l                                                                                                                           ,
i                                  higher than approximately 104, with factors such as cost                                l and feasibility taken into account. Given the current
'                                  difficulties and large expense in meeting these risk levels                             ,
and the number and significance of other priority projects                              !
that compete for the same resources and regulatory                                     l attention, it is unlikely that significantly lower risk levels will be employed by EPA as the basis for setting                                l environmental standards for the foreseeable future. NRC implementation of radiological criteria that are consistent with these risk levels would, therefore, substantially enhance the likelihood that future EPA actions will not NRC require reopening of completed decommissioning actions.
may.be able to enhance this likelihood further by seeking                               i and obtaining EPA concurrence on the selection of these risk levels as the basis for near-term cleanup critoria.
: 2. Pursuant to the recently agreed upon Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NRC and EPA, NRC could urge EPA                             l to grandfather completed decommissioning actions in any                                l future rulemaking by EPA to establish generally applicable environmental standards for decommissioning. Completed                                 ;
sites could be explicitly' excluded from the applicability of                         l the standards.                        As an alternative, completed sites could be     i implicitly excluded by establishing a screening methodology                            1 in the standards for completed decommissioning actions,                                !
whereby actions would not be revisited unless they exceeded the standards by a significant margin. In recent                                      i' rulemakings to establish generally applicable environmental                         .
standards (e.g., groundwater protection requirements for inactive uranium mill tailings, low-level radioactive vaste management and disposal), EPA has displayed considerable                              i reluctance to grandfather completed actions on the basis that such a system promotes dual standards for human health                            .
and environmental protection that cannot be justified on                               !
health or environmental grounds.                                                      l
: 3. NRC could, pursuant to the recentl'y agreed to MOU between EPA and NRC, cooperate with EPA in developing and                              '
promulgating radiological criteria for decommissioning through a joint rulemaking or guidance effort. such                                    ;
cooperation could also be implemented through the                                     J participative rulemaking currently under consideration by the commission as an outgrowth of the consensus process on-the Below Regulatory concern policy. This approach could increase _the efficiency of Federal efforts to develop the criteria through a coordinated effort rather than through the separate efforts of HRC, EPA, and other agencies. It may also be more successful in involving the full range of interested parties in the participative rulemaking and 18

l
                  .           .                NOTE         ORNEY CLI              INFORMATION LIMITED TO           NLESS THE          ISSION DIRE                       THERWISE
                                                                                              /
                                , promote finality in establishment of the decommissioning criteria. This approach might also increase the likelihood t
l I
that E?A would agree to grandfather completed decommissioning actione.                                                                  l However, the agencies' schedules and priorities for developing such criteria do not currently coincide and, thus, this approach could substantially delay NRC efforts to develop radiological criteria for decommissioning. In addition, because of EPA responsibilities for setting cleanup criteria for facilities operated by the Department
                                 .of Energy (DOE), it is likely that the scope of the rulemaking would need to be broadened to include decommissioning of the full range of defense and commercial nuclear facilities. specifically, DOE and EPA are currently finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to guide the development of radiological criteria for decommissioning as directed by Congress in the conference report that accompanied the Department of Defense Authori.tation (P.L. 101-510) and in the Senate Appropriations Committee Report for H.R. 5158.        The MOU does not itself provide the criteria, but rather describes the cooperative process that                               ;
will be employed in developing the criteria. EPA staff has                                I committed to provide a copy of the MOU, once signed, to NRC                               l staff and involve NRC as appropriate in the interagency                                   j efforts to develop the criteria.
: 4.      NRC could participate actively in the development and review of DOE's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement                               ,
(PEIS) for environmental restoration and waste management (SEcY 91-362).       Radiological criteria for decommissioning and release of contaminated sites for unrestricted use areNRC                             4 two of the issues that will be' addressed in p0E's PEIS.
staff has recommended to the Commission that NRC participate proactively in the development of the PEIS. In a letter dated August 26, 1991, from the EPA Administrator to the Secretary of Energy, EPA agreed to participate as a cooperating agency in the PEIS for environmental rcstoration and waste management (as well as for the PEIS for the weapons reconfiguration program). Active involvement of EPA, NRC, and DOE in the PEIS could have the same practical effect as under approach number 3 above. That is, this
'                                  involvement would foster interagency consideration of the technical and policy issues ~ associated with establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning at defense nuclear i                                  facilitnes and selecting a preferred approach for                                        r establishing such criteria.
l
;                                                                    19 i

4                          .
TTORNEY CLIEN        FORMATI HOTJ LIMITED To MC UNLESS THE          ISSION DI ECTS OTHERWISE l
-                                        5. NRC could asek EPA concurrence on each action involving cleanup of significant environmental        contamination at commercial nuclear facilities. For example, NRC could seek l
EPA review and concurrence on specific license amendments l
s that authorite remediation, or on orders directing cleanup l                                         and Suchsite  characterization coordination  may beinparticularly accordancehelpful with firmin addressingschedules.
sites with mixed hazardous and radiological contamination since cleanup would be regulated under both RCRA and the
[                                        ' Atomic Energy Act. However, if EPA does not currently have j
sufficient resources to support site-specific reviews and j
licensing determinations, then such coordination might
;                                         significantly delay implementation of the individual l                                         actions. In addition, HRC staff is uncertain whether EPA review and concurrence in specific actions would ensure that                     ,
l future EPA standards would grandfather completed                                l decommissioning actions. Further, NRC requests for EPA concurrence on individual actions would have the practical effect of providing EPA with authority over commercial l
l                                          nuclear facilities that EPA currently lacks under the Atomic                    l Energy Act or other rederal statutes. such an action is i                                                                                                                          l l
also inconsistent with previous Commission decisions against involving EPA in site-specific licensing actions (e.g.,
e approval of Alternate concentration Limits for groundwater protection at uranium mi11' tailings sites, SEcY 90-268).
l Moreover, significant' involvement of EPA in making site-specific determinations could highlight perceived weaknesses and vulnerabilities in NRC's ability to regulate and compel timely and safe c1'ennup of contaminated nuclear facilities i
and increase licensee anxieties about completing cleanup j                                           actions now in the absence of generally applicable EPA
;                                                                                                                          l
:                                           standards for cleanup.
: 6. HRC could encourage EPA to find NRC's decommissioning program to be adequate. This is the approach the agency is l
takang with respect so EPA's implementation of the clean Air Act. As a practical matter, if EPA can not find NRC's l
l j
decommissioning' program to be adequate, it is unlikely that EPA would grandfather inadequately decommissioned sites from
{
:                                            generally applicable environmental standards. This option j
is enhanced the closer NRC's cleanup criteria are to EPA's J                                            RCRA and CERCLA standards.
l 3.5 Preferred Approach 1
l staff believes the preferred solution to the finality issue is to consider.WRC decisions not to reopen terminated licenses so long j
as licenstes comply with all applicable standards in effect at the time et termination and such standards, if implemented with a I                                                                         20 l

h HO     ATTORNEY CLIE    INFORMATION LINITED TO    C UNLESS THE      ISSION D     S OTHERWISE 4
i high degree of assurance that the standards would be met, result j                                      ih an effective dose equivalent of a few millirem per year consistent with the interim cleanup criteria described as the l                                      preferred approach in Section 2. Under this approach, there i                                      would be no reopener clause included in an order terminating a i,                                     license.
l Withrespecttoexploringfeasiblemeansforpromotibgfin$11ty                           g L                                      withpotentialfutureEPAactions,thestaff'spreferredapproachlfl[.[fi 1s to establish and implement cleanup criteria that are generally consistent with the risk ranges employed by EPA in current and i
anticipated environmental programs, to cooperate with EPA in any
;                                      future rulemaking to establish generally acceptable environmental                     ,
j                                      standards for cleanup, and to encourage EPA to find HRC's                            l l
decommissioning program to be adequate. The recently agreed to HOU between NRC and EPA should provide a framework for the l
agencies to communicate regarding these issues. In addition, NRC                     ,
j                                      staff plans to monitor and participate in the DOE-EPA efforts                        l l
under the MOU to develop radiological criteria for                                   ,
i decommissioning and has recommended to the Commission that NRC                       l
!                                      participate proactively in the DOE PEIS for environmental                            '
restoration and waste management. Staff believes these i
approaches collectively constitute reasonable means for enhancing l
1 the likelihood that future EPA actions will not require reopening of cospleted decommissioning actions.
e
!                                       4.o             rnmurina Timely cleanun l
As described in SECY 91-342, staff believes there is an adequate public health, safety and interest basis for compelling licensee action to clean up contaminated sites. Although these sites are l
-                                       contaminated with higher levels of radioactive materials than NRC i
would consider acceptable for release for unrestr}cted use, they l-                                      do not pose an imminent health or environmental hazard (e.g.,
maximum doses to members of the public offsite do not exceed the new public dose limit in 10 CFR 20.1301). .The predominant hazard associated with the contamination accrues from protracted
!                                        exposure to members of the public who say, at some time in the j                                        future, live on the contaminated sites.
!                                        4.1             Basis for Compelling Timely cleanup
!                                        Elevated levels of radionuclides in environmental media (soil, i                                        air, surface water, groundwater, vegetation) at contaminated i                                        sites after they have been released for unrestricted use may pose a significant long term risk to members of the public. To avoid j
J or reduce long-term hazards, the contamination must be s
appropriately characterized, removed or mitigated prior to
]
termination of the licenses and release of the sites for i
!                                                                                   21 i

l'                .
[    ,
         ~
NT INFORMATI Et ATTORNEY OTHERWISE LIMITED     NRC UNLESS TMr COMMISSION unrestricted use.                                                                                           ,
!                        In addition, the continued presence of contamination prior to l-license termination and cleanup could result in further release a'                       and spread of the contamination onsite and offsite into 4                        groundwater, soils, surface water, and air. Besides potentially e                         increasing exposures of members of the public and workers, the                                             ,
;                        continued spread of the contamination may also significantly cosplicate, and increase the costs associated with, the cleanup                                             i of the contamination. Uncontrolled spread of the contamination
:                        above appropriate levels is also contrary to the principle of j                        maintaining radiation exposures and effluents as low as j                        reasonably achievable (ALARA).
4
!                        Further, continued migration of contamination is not in the l                        public interest if the eventual cost of cleaning it up exceeds j                        the technological or financial resources of licensees. Should
]
the licensee's financial capabilities be exceeded, responsibility j                         for cleanup of the contamination may revert to the public through j                        cleanup programs such as the Superfund program under CERCLA or a                                            <
j                         remedial action program managed by DOE such as the Surplus
;                         racilities Management Program.                           If a sufficient number of
!                         licensees cause contamination that they cannot reasonably clean j                        up, this situation could impair the public's confidence in the
;                         regulatory framework controlling the use of nuclear materials.
!                        Most of the sites listed on the SDMP are contaminated with
!                         uranium or thorium. Because the uranium contamination predominantly poses a internal radiation exposure threat, the
!                         public health and safety basis for compelling cleanup of uranium j                         contaminated sites must be based on long-term public health and environmental concerns, as well as public interest considerations. Immediate action may be necessary to avoid i
j i
latent effects of the contamination that may not be readily j                         correctable if allowed to spread because of technological and j                         financial limitations. Immediate actions may also be justified to avoid inadvertent transfer of cleanup responsibility from the                                            ,
j                         licensee to the public in the event that the licensee may not be i
financially gualified to conduct the cleanup actions in the
:                          future. sites contaminated with thorium may pose more immediate j                         health hazards to members of the public from direct radiation
!                         exposures associated with thorium decay products if access to the i
contaminated sites is not properly controlled.
i                         Existing decommissioning regulations require that sites be i                         decontaminated to a level that permits release for unrestricted
;                         use. However, as indicated in SECY-91-342, there is no time limit in the regulations for accomplishing this. In fact, the j
need for completing decommissioning without significant delay is
}                                                                                  22 i
).
1

  - - - - - - - _ . -                                    . - _ .     - - . ~ . - - . _ . . - -            .   ..- . - - . . _ . . - - -- .
i i,       .
t 1                              -                  NO   .         ATTORNEY CLI                     INFORMATI0 LIMITED TO     RC UNLESS THE                             ISSION        S OTHERWISE l
                            'only acknowledged in NRC's requirements for decommissioning
-                            nuclear reactors other than those operated by utilities (10 CFR i                            50. 82 (b) (1) (ii) ) . NRC has not promulgated a comparable requirement for decoraissioning materials facilities. Therefore, the staff currently has no firm basis in the regulations to
;                            compel timely cleanup of SDMP sites. The absence of enforceable j                            timeliness requirements has been one of the more frustrating j                            aspects of implementing the SDMP. Staff may raquest licensees to submit reasonable schedulos for remediation, but what is l                            reasonable to the licensee is not always reasonable to the NRC or i                            to the public or Congress.
Delaying decommissioning may yield benefits at some facilities.
For example, delaying decommissioning at nuclear power reactors
:                            may allow for sufficient radioactive decay to reduce worker exposure and generation of radioactive waste. The background l
information developed for the rulemaking on general requirements
;                            for decommissioning (53 IB 24018; June 27, 1988) evaluated l
decommissioning planning and preparation requirements for a wide
!                            variety operations licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, and
: 70.      Based on that evaluation, the background information indicated that major benefits are not likely to be gained by delaying decomnissioning beyond three years from the date that
!                            operations cease at materials facilities. Allowing licensees a
:                            reasonable period to determine whether operations will start up
!                            again, therefore, the staff believes that decommissioning actions at most materials facilities should be complete within about four l                            years from the date that the operations cease.
.                             4.2 Flexibility in considering Cleanup Timing Staff recognizes that there have been and will continue to be exceptions to the preferred approach of requiring, cleanup of existing contamination within about four years. For. example, NRC i                             considers the SAFSTOR and ENTOMB options as reasonable
;-                            alternatives for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors (see rederal Reaister notice for the Decommissioning Rule, 53 FR 24022 June 27, 1988). Both of these options allow nuclear power l
j                             reactor licensees to maintain the reactor facility in a safe, but i
contaminated, condition for an extended period of time. Under the SAFSTOR option, nuclear power reactors are allowed up to 60 years before dismantlement.- In the case of the ENTOMB option, the Commission will consider use of this option on a case-by-case basis and could authorize placing the facility in a state that q
i                             would delay decommissioning beyond 60 years only when necessary i                             to protect public health and safety (53 EB 24024).
i i                            Staff believes the SAFSTOR and ENTOMB approach for power reactors 1s consistent with its position on the need for timely
;l j
23 i                     .
p-   -- -                                                                          -              ,n    me

N       : ATTORNEY C       RT INFORMA                                 ,
LIMITED T                                                 RC UNLISS T     OMMISSION          ECTS OTHERWISE decommissioning of contaminated sites becauset (1) HRC has high                                                                                j confidence that the power reactor licenses will continue to have sufficient financial resources to pay for eventual                                                                                             !
decontamination and decommissioning of the facility, (2) NRC has                                                                               l high confidence in the licensee's ability to control public                                                                                    i l
t access to the contamination over the interim period prior to                                                                                   <
l
!             complete decontamination, (3) delaying decontamination of some reactor components will significantly reduce worker radiation exposures due to the dominance of relatively short-lived, gamma-
'             emitting radionuclides associated with reactor decommissioning, and (4) significant spread of contamination to environmental media is highly unlikely since most of the contamination is                                                                                    l contained within engineered structures specifically designed to                                                                                !
contain the radionuclides.
Some or all of these conditions are clearly not present at some of the SDMP sites, particularly where the contaminated medium is soil or groundwater and the licensee has limited financial resources. For example, delay of cleanup at the SDMP sites would not be expected to reduce worker exposures because most of the sites are contaminated with long-lived radionuclides such as depleted uranium and thorium. In addition, the licenscss on the SDMP list typically do not have the security and control systems in place to restrict public access for several decades to the contaminated areas of the sites.
However, HRC's decommissioning options of SAFSTOR and ENTOMB for nuclear power reactors may form the basis for arguments against NRC attempts to compel timely cleanup of contaminated nuclear materials facilities.                                                                In addition, NRC's practice of allowing contamination on site for a decade or more after cessation of licensed operations which produced the contamination, may also be cited as a basis for defeating current NRC actions.to compel timely cleanup.
4.3                  Preferred Approach For the public health, safety, and interest reasons cited previously, NRC staff believes that contamination from inactive operations should be cleaned up as soon as practicable to prevent unnecessary spread of the contamination and to maintain facilities in as clean a condition as reasonable taking into consideration the ALARA objective for both occupational and public exposures. The staff's preferred approach is to require licensees to complete cleanup of contaminated sites in about four years after operations cease or                                                                three years after issuance of orders to cleanup the sites. However, this approach will provide flexibility to allow a licensee to demonstrate good cause for delaying cleanup based on technical feasibility or risk reduction 24

I                                                                                                                 !
I ATTORNEY CLIEN     FORHATION                       l NOTE                                                                    :
l
,                             LIMITED TO N                   UNLESS THE       SSION DI           OTHERWISE -
!                       considerations.                                                                           I
;                       5.0   site charactertration one of the technical issues that has been partially responsible                           l
{
for delaying approval and implementation of site remediation and                          i characterization measures has been the lack of guidance and                               i criteria on what constitutes adequate sits characterization.
j-                      This delay is most often manifested in iterative reviews by the                           !
NRC of licensee site characterization reports and remedial action                    . Ic l-                      plans for SDMP sites. Decommissioning of the SDMP sites would                             :
!                       proceed in a more orderly fashion, and more closely adhere to the
!                       expected schedule, if the NRC provided guidance on acceptable
'                       characterization to licensees, or other parties, responsible for                          !
!                       cleanup.
)
:                       Decommissioning proceeds in three major steps:                       site j
characterization, site remediation, and the termination survey of the site to verify that cleanup has been completed in accordance i
i                       with appropriate criteria and standards. NRC guidance exists for I                       site remediation requirements in Regulatory Guide 3.65, standard Format and content of Decommissionina Plans for Licensees under 10 CFR Parts 30. 40. and 70. NRC is currently revising its existing guidance on the conduct of termination surveys, which is expected to be completed by early 1992. However, guidance i                        currently is not available on planning and conducting site i
characterization for decommissioning. Guidance for site                                  ,
i characterization would help assure that site characterization is appropriately planned and conducted and that the resulting site characterization reports are submitted with minimal deficiencies and in a timely fashion.
The objective of the site characterization for SDMP sites is to provide su'ficient information so that the licensee can validly conduct a paeliminary evaluation of the licensee's proposed remediation approach, perform a reasonably conservative assessment of the dose to the public attributable to contamination currently present at. the site, and perform a reasonably conservative estimation of maximum potential doses to the public from residual radioactivity projected to remain at the site after completion of the proposed remediation approach.
Staff also uses the.information to independently assess the extent of contamination and to evaluate the long-term effects of any residual contamination that would remain after remediation.
The nature and scope of site characterization information will vary from site to site and is determined largely by the characteristics of the existing contamination, characteristics of the site, and the remediation approach proposed by the licensee.
Additional radiological and hydrogeological information will 25

4 i
NOT                   ATTORNEY CLIP ?-INFORMATION OTHERWISE LIMITED TO              C UNLESS ATHISSION DIRE l
l generally be needed at sites with significant existing or
;                       potential groundwater contamination or if the licensee proposes to dispose of the contaminated material onsite in accordance with 10 CFR 20.302.
'                       5.1    Using Existing Guidance
!                       The staff has evaluated the option of using existing guidance
!                       developed by HRC, EPA, the Department of Energy, and oak Ridge                    v
:                       Associated Universities (0RAU: the lead NRC contractor for performing termination surveys) . Addendum A lists the documents which were reviewed by the staff in the course of this evaluation. Based on this evaluation, staff determined that l
existing NRC, DOE, and EPA documents provide a comprehensive discussion of decommissioning requirements and relevant guidance on site characterization needed to support decommissioning.
However, no single document exists which can be used as guidance for SDMP site characterizations. The ORAU procedures manuals describe step-by-step instrurtions for performing contamination assessment tasks, but they do not address which tasks are necessary in an acceptable site characterization program.
Although there is no single document at this time that can be used in its entirety, existing information from various sources could be used es the basis for developing a stand alone guidance document on site characterization, thus decreasing the time required for development and completion of the needed guidance.
5.2    Developing New Guidance NRC guidance documents can range from general to specific. A specific document would explicitly describe the c9mponents of site characterization and acceptable methods and approaches for performing site characterization. A specific guidance document would include, to the exterit possible, detailed procedures and methods for the collection and assessment of the necessary information. These procedures would cover items such as acceptable survey techniques for radiological contamination of soll and other environmental media, appropriate grid sizes for sample collection, methods for sample collection and standard methods for characterization o.f hydrogeologic or other aspects, such as those recommended by the American society of Testing Materials or other voluntary standards organizations.
The specific guidance would include the minimum information needed by the NRC to evaluate the health and safety implications of the plan.       During the review of a site characterization report submitted following this type of guidance document, the staff                     ,
                                                                                                            \
26                            l 4
4 l
l l
1

l NOTE:           Tf0RNEY CL                          INFORMATI LIMITED TO H      UNLESS THE                            ISSION D                    S OTHERWISE would expect each component included in the guidance document to be addressed as appropriate for a given site. Such an approach would be expected to reduce the number and significance of.
deficiencies in licensee site characterization reports.                                             However, the unique aspects of some sites may require additional characterization not specifically 11sted in the guidance. A good l
l faith effort by the licenses to follow the guidance could still
!                                       result in a deficient report in this case.
l Most existing HRC guidance documents, such as Branch Technical                                               '
Positions and Regulatory Guides, are more general than described above. These documents leave the licensee with primary responsibility for determining what parts of the guidance document apply to a particular site and what approaches to use in collecting the necessary information. The intent of this type of guidance is to address essentially all types of sites and remediation alternatives. A draft outline of an NRC guidance document for SDMP site characterization is presented in Addendum B. The staff would not expect each component of the general l
guidance document to be addressed in each site characterization report, because the document would include recommendations that However, the staff's experience are not relevant to every site.
has been that licensee submittals following general guidance often lack the information necessary to evaluate fully the health and safety implications of the remediation plan. The staff must then request additional information from the licensee, which may require additional site characterization and often delays decommissioning.
5.3   Conducting Independent Analyses In combination with developing guidance on acceptable site characterization and remediation plans, NRC could. conduct independent radiological surveys and site characterization to confira licensee site characterization efforts. Staff has already conducted such independent assessments at some high priority SDHP sites to confirm the adequacy of licensee site characterization plans and reports.
5.4  Preferred Approach The staff intends to employ a hybrid approach through the following actions:
: 1) Use existing guidance from other program areas to describe the general types of information that are needed to j
support cleanup actions at the SDMF sites, l
1 i                                               2) Develop new draft guidance on site characterization 27 l
l

l l
Et    ATTORNEY     ENT INFORMA ECTS OTHERWISE LIMITED              NRC UNLES                  COMMISSION i
I                         specifically tailored to decommissioning actions at SDMP i                        . sites, and                                                                               ;
i
: 3) Conduct independent site characterization and surveys to i                         confirm licensee site characterization and remediation plans and reports at selected sites.
Staff will develop new site characterization guidance in cor. junction with evaluation of what minimum site characterization
<                   information is needed to ensure protection of the public health and safety. The new guidance can also serve as a template for the sita characterization content of orders that may be issued to compel more timely cleanup and characterization of the SDMP sites. In the interim until the new guidance is developed, j
orders could also incorporate relevant portions of documents by j
reference as guidance for acceptable site characterization.
The staff's approach to site characterization will be flexible j                   enough to permit a licensee, or other party, to cleanup and remove obvious contamination promptly.                            Follow-up surveys would be conducted to verify residual contamination levels and serve as the basis for determining if any additional cleanup is necessary.
Such an approach could produce savings in terms of cost and manpower.
          ~                                                                                                    ,
Ok
            \

unzzro ro  uSINfelL#fss!"l50''"orurawzsr f
l f
I i
i dl
\                                                                5 i
Q.
i f

(
LIMITE NRC UNLE S    WISE I
l
                                 ')
                                 ~
Q l
i l
l 30 l

i NO                          ATTORNEY CLI     INFORMATION fi
                               ,            LIMITED TO                  UNLESS TH               ISSION DI      OTHERWISE l
I l
l Ni l                                                                                                                        b i
i 1
4 31 l

l                                                                                       l
!                                                 ATTORNEY      INFORMATION i
MMISSION DI    S OTHERWISE LIMITED T         RC UNLESS TH l
l l
f i
l
(
b I
\
i 2
l
\
\
L        -

    , gam,24 A.4 4M45N-*" "" - - ## "
l i                                        .
                                             \
i 33
(

i e
ATTORNEY C                   INFORMAT                     {
                .                  .             LIMITED    RC UNLESS THE                  ISSIO  D              CTS OTHERWISE
!                                                                                                                                  l i
i
\                                                                                                                                  l t
i 2
e I
l i
l l
l I
l
(
l I
i I
l l
f 1
l i
j                                                                                   34 i
l i
i J

1 l                                                                               OTE:             ATTORNEY                 IENT IN                                                    TION LIMITE                 O NRC UNLESS T                                   COMMISS                                         DIRECTS OTHERWISE l                                                                            -
1 i
i f
l                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,
I w
(                                                  ,
\                                                                                    .
I                                                                                >                                 ,o
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . :, : i        j l
j l
l l
I i
I l
l i                                             .
i I                                                                                          '
f                                                                                                                                                                                                       .
t t
I hm                                                      .

____,,a--w-.a,ma-c=w-&--*'6"'
                                        ' = *""" * * *      "'
EC
                                  ~
LIMITED TO N                UNLE S                    10      IERWISE l
I
(
l                                                                                                                       b l
36                           -
L . . . _ . _                       .         _        .- -    _w     - -- ---- -----          ----     -

l l
l i                                                                       NO     ATTORNEY C     NT INFORMA C UNLESS T     OMMISSION                                  CTS OTHERWISE r
LIMITED T l
i l
t i
l I
I J
l                                                                                                                                                     i l                                                                                                                                                     4 1
i l
l l
6.3.2               Relationship of the Timeliness Rule with Potential Orders 0
As requested by the commission in item 2 of the December 3, 1991 SRM, the staff has evaluated the timing of the rulemaking on decommissioning timeliness (both interim final rule and accelerated notice and comment rulemaking) relative to potential I
issuance of immediately effective orders for six SDMP sites. The staff believes the following schedules are reasonable, albeit cospressed, projections of the time and effort required to implement these two activities; the hearing schedule applicable to any given casa could, however, vary depending en the. number and nature of the issues in dispute.
l                                             '                                                                                             .,
l                                                                                             -                                                   . ,
j                                                                                        37 l

1
'                                                                                  /
N   Et ATTORNEY C      INFORMAT LIMITED                                     NRC UNLESS TH   OMMISSION DIR    S OTHERWISE I
Timeliness rule ferocosed and final)                                                   Estimated _ Dates Submit Proposed Rule to Commission                                              1/17/92 Issue Commission Approval                                                       2/17/92 Publish in the Federal Register                                                 2/21/92 i
Effective Dato (30 days after i                                 publication if final)                                       3/21/92 or Comment period (75 days after j                                 publication if proposedt                                    5/7/92
-             Complete Review of Comments                                                     7/7/92 l             Submit Final rule to Commission                                                 8/7/92 Issue Commission Approval                                                       8/30/92 i             Publish Final Rule                                                              9/16/92 Begin Enforcing Rule (30 days after publication)                                         10/16/92 4
Immedietelv Effective Orders (6 Sites)                                           Estimated Date          ,
Select First Round of Licensees                                                 2/17/92 Complete Draft Orders                                                           J/9/92 i
Issue Orders (High Priority)                                                   3/30/92
'             Request for Hearings                                                            4/20/92 Rule on Challenge to Immediate Effectiveness                                                5/11/92
;              Complete Discovery                                                             8/10/92 (Note:The following dates could be affected if motions for summary disposition are filed)
File Written Testimony                                                         9/10/92 Conduct Evidentiary hearing (1 week)                                            10/5-9/92 Proposed Finding and Reply Findings                                             11/30/92 Issue Initial Decision                                                          3/1/93 Complete Commission Review                                                      6/12/93 As can be seen in comparing the dates for both approaches, the final rule on decomnEssioning timelinesr. could be completed, after 75-day notice and comment, and effective by November 1992.
By this time, the order process should have resolved whether sufficient basis exists to justify the immediate effectiveness of the orders issued to the six sites. Although the Commission's basis for compelling timely cleanup will.be strengthened by issuance of the timeliness rulemaking, escalated enforcement actions such as orders and immediately effective orders may still be necessary to compel licensees to clean up sites within the ML four-year                             riod provided in the draft rule.
38

  . -  - - . - -                                   = . . _ _ - . _ . - . . _ _ . - -                                              - _ . . _
l                                                                                                                      :  ATTOR                         ENT I          T LIMITED                                            HRC UNLESS         COMMISSI                    DIRE                             OTHERWISE I
l l
l 5
i l
l l
b I
l l
1 6.5             Demands for Information Demands for Information offer another mechanism to support staff i
efforts in compelling timely cleanup of SDMP sites. For                                                                                                                            example, the licenses for many SDMP sites are currently in a timely renewal status or will enter'this status in the near tery.                                                                                                                           For
;                                               these sites, one alternative mechanism may be to require licensensito propose specific dates for completion of decommissioning steps in connection with license renew $he                                                                                                                al.         This, j                                                                                                                                         39 i

  -   .    - - .. -           ._     -.- .- -              . . - - - - . _ . - -             - . - = . - . -
i NOTE:           TTORNEY      NT INFO                                           i i
LIM   D TO N    UNLESS T           COMMISSIO                 RECTS OTHERWISE l         mechanism is also generally applicable to licensees who are not
:         in a timely renewal status. Where licensees are unprepared to
!         volunteer and commit to specific dates for decommissioning milestones, NRC could issue specific Demands for Information (DFIs) to obtain milestone dates, commitments, and information j         such as site characteristics and remedial action plans. Once j         these. dates and information are obtained by NRC in response to
;         the DFI, they could be made enforceable conditions of the renewed j         license if the licensee agrees. If the licensee does not agree                                     t to the information provided in response to the DFI, the schedules would have to be imposed by order to make them binding on the licensee. However, DFIs are used to request information only and are not an appropriate mechanism for requiring the licensee to initiate cleanup actions.
Strengths Issuing DFIs is a relatively routine process and could eliminate or substantially reduce the significant !ncrease in NRC staff resource required to support the alternatie= m:achanisms, such as immediately effective orders. Licensees may also be more willing to cooperate with the NRC in this process because the dates and information needs could be negotiated to the satisf action of both parties. This cooperative approach could also develop specific deadlines and commitments are made and then adopted in an enforceable instrument (i.e. , a license or order) . Another advantage is that a DFI does not, by itself, convey hearing rights to the licensee because the Commission is merely obtaining the information it needs to conduct proper oversight of the licensed activity.
Weaknesses DFIs may not.be successful with recalcitrant licensees who wish to challenge the use of this tool for the purpose of establishing cleanup schedules. Although there is no right to a hearing on the DFI itself, the right to request a hearing on cleanup would not.be entirely eliminated because the licensee could still request a hearing in conjunction with the license renewal, license amendment, or order modifying the license resulting from the licensee's response to the DFI. Further, the scope of the DFI is limited to information, and may not be sufficiently broad to justify specific requests for licensees to make commitments for. actions that go considerably beyond merely obtaining information.
6.6      Preferred Approach The staff's preferred approach for the use of enforcement 40

    -                      NO         ORNEY      i     RFDbON COMMI      DIRECT    HERWISE LIMITED TO NR     NLESS procedures to compel timely cleanup is as follows:
: 1. Issue Immediately Effective Orders for a limited number of cases where there is a sufficient public health, safety and interest basis to compel a licenses to proceed with cleanup activities immediately. Immediately effective orders contemplated under this alternative would generally require licensees to develop and submit adequate site characterization plans, complete site characterization, and implement remediation measures to cleanup sites in
-               accordance with appropriate residual contamination levels for unrestricted use prior to license termination. The immediately effective orders would also require that each of these steps be completed in accordance with firm schedules.
: 2. Accelerate the rulemaking on decommissioning timeliness by expediting staff review of comments and corresponding revisions to the rule.
: 3. Develop and broadly disseminate a Commission-approved staff action plan based on the staff's preferred approaches to communicate the Commission's desire and intent to cleanup contaminated sites in a safe and timely manner.
: 4. Issue Demands for Information followed by orders, if necessary, to require licensees to submit decommissioning and remediation plans, including firm schedules for the completion of site characterization and cleanup activities.
: 5. Seek court injunctions or employ financial incentives to encourage timely decommissioning as described in the next section.
Staff would select the fivc to six candidate sites for l~ssuance of immediately effective orders based on consideration of the following factors:      (1) length of delay associated with clean up of existing contamination, (2) prospect for additional delay in cleanup, (3) cooperation by the licensee in attempting to cleanup contamination, (4) the potential for incremental migration of contamination and its significance during the delay period, and (5) financial vulnerability of the licensee or site owner. The staff would develop and implement plans for ensuring timely cleanup based on the experience gained through the issuance and response to immediately effective orders for timely cleanup at the first five to six sites.
The staff is proposing to implement this preferred approach in a phased manner. Upon completion of the enforcement actions for the first six sites, the staff will reevaluate the application of 41

l e
         -                                            NO               .         ATTORNE       LIENT IN                   TION            /
LIMITED T                            RC UNLESS T                  COMMIS                    DIRE y IHERWISE the preferred approaches based on experience gained in this first                                                                                                                          I phase. Such a phased approach is preferrable given limited staff resources and uncertainties associated with the potential                                                         In addition, outcomes of these escalated enforcement actions.
i
!                the phased approach will allow staff to assess the impact of these actions on the willingness of SDMP licensees, SDMP site owners, and the regulated community in general to cleanup contaminated sites in a timely and effective manner.
t
                                                                                                                              +          ,
           ~
(,
1
* v C                                                                                                                            [
                                  ~d       ,
e
* I I
t                ,
4 Q-y A
r Pe b
                                                                                                                                                                          $6 0                      4 gY           e r                                                                                                                                           '
A ms                                                                             ,

  ,,44      mas.w--AW'*h^'"'
LIMITED TO                          S                      ERWISE f
i l
l l
b.
i I
I l
1 i
i i
!                                                                             u i
i i
l      _ ..         _ _
                                 -. .- . -. -. - - -   . - - - - - - - - - --   - - - - - - - ~ ~ -- ~        '~ ~~

NOTE:    A    NEY CLIENT               ORMATION SS THE C              SSION DI                         THERWISE LIMI     TO NRC UN h
I 7.3   Exemption from Future Cleanup Standards NRC could commit to not requiring additional site cleanup pursuant to potential future standards even if future NRC standards are more stringent, if site cleanups are completed in accordance with present requirements, as diccussed previously in Section 3.0.
Strengths This option provides an incentive to encourage licensees to of the contaminated sites under the complete existing timely  cleanup'mework.
regulatory  fra                   Licensees would be assured of finality to the cleanup actions, thus reducing future risks associated with reop g ing of terminatedLicensees     licenses and.                   additional complying  with cleanup mandated by mture standards.
cleanup doadlines and existing standards would be grandfathered in terms of any future rulemaking establishing more restrictive standards. Decommissioning could then proceed promptly in a more stable regulatory fremework under existing guidelines and standards.
Weaknesses                                               .
This option appears as though NRC is willing to trade,pafety for timing and may cause serious public perception problems when NRC expresses how a grandfatheredGrandfathering site need not be                   isproved from        to mire stringent satisfy future requirements.
cleanup standards in the future maf lead to administrativd'aN legal challenges. It may be premature for NRC to commit today to 44

l
                                                                                  \
    ~
TE:   ATTO   Y CLIENT I      TION                     i LIMITE   O NRC UNLES   THE COMM       DIREC            HERWISE exempting licensees from future cleanup, especially when the              f potential disparity between existing and future NRC and EPA               j cleanup standards cannot be assessed or predicted with certainty at this time. Committing to grandfathering may weaken the health and safety basis for promulgating new cleanup standards and criteria. Further, an.NRC determination to exempt licensees from future cleanup action may not be possible because the sites might qualify for additional cleanup under EPA's CERCLA program, particularly if EPA promulgated cleanup standards in the future that are significantly more stringent than present guidelines and criteria. This approach also raises issues associated with NRC's obligation to conform to, implement, and enforce EPA's standards promulgated under the AEA.
f 7.4    Add an Annual Fee                                                  l NRC could conduct a rulemaking to add an annual fee for facilities or sites with possession only licenses (POL) o r' approved remediation plans. Under the current requirements in 10          l CFR Part 171, NRC does not charge an annual fee to licensees             ;
involved with decontamination, decommissioning, reclamation, and         J site restoration activities pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 because they are charged annual fees only while they are          l operating (see footnote 7.to the Annual Fee Schedule in 10 CFR Part 171; 56 IB 315101       Persons conducting site cleanups in a diligent and timely manner could be granted exemptions from such         i fees on the grounds that minimal regulatory effort was needed.          l 1
Strengths                                 l This option provides an incentive for timely decommissioning and site cleanup because a fee would be incurred each year until the          i site is cleaned up and the license terminated. Avoidance of              l future costs (annual fees) are the primary motivating factor             i under this option. Thus, imposing an annual fee could provide an          l incentive to encourage timely decommissioning and site cleanup.
Weaknesses This option will require a rulemaking to amend the requirements in 10 CFR Part 171. Such a rulemaking would require at least 6 months to complete. Since the staff is already planning to perform'a lessons-learned analysis of the implementation of the new annual fee rule, such a rule change would be part of this analysis and could be implemented in FY1993.            In addition, increasing the fees may diminish the financial resources available to licensees for. cleanup of the sites and would transfer the money to the U.S. Treasury rather than an escrow account or dedicated fund for site cleanup.       Further, imposing 45
                                            - _          , . . - -   _      ~_._

i
!                                                                                                          NO'" :  ATTO              CLIEN       ORMATIO' LIMITED T                        RC UNLES THE C0               SION        S OTHERWISE annual fees whose magnitude is likely to be less than $100,000 I                                                                      may not provide a sufficient financial incentive to cleanup the sites whan compared against the high cost of cleanup and characterization (e.g. , $500,000 to $10,000,000) . Finally, use l
of HRC's fee authorization to compel timely cleanup would not be consistent with                             tenLof-that-legislation.
l l
i f
l l
l
(
:                                                                                                                                                                            s; k
i I
l l
l i
l e
f d
I

      - m m. enan:"grfiradig" s
47         ,

{                                                                                             E:   ATT [OY CLIENT . FORMA  __
TyN LIMITED                         NRC UNLESS THE COMMISSION DIRECTS OTHERWISE I
f
                                                  ~
l j
l                                                                                                                                                                                           i i                                                                                                ,
d                                                ,
                                                                                                                                                                                          \
is d'"
l                                               .
1 I
6 l
i                                                       . .
i l
l

q.
\
u mrco r d d H M M U M fJ^ M N tams, a
g.
r u
                                                                                                                      +
l                                           .
l l
l                                                                                                         -
l y
e l
I                                                                                                   -
s f
L.--.-.._.-._          _ _             . _ _ _ _ _ . _                _              _ _       _ _ _

                   -'^^4's.ma.
1
           -                         4-l TE:
u m /To ac ~ BA                    - co fIENTFORMAT   ,sson         fIOt
(
1 l
i I
l
;                                                                                                                                   e d1 l
f 4
I So
}
I l
a   r,m-*      -      =- -      m -w em yr e - er   --ywerw s--    --w----,y   e w+,  a w  -- -r:-  c - r - ----e-mey y >  e vw

            -------.-.se- ..    , .
TE: ATTO                         Y CLIENT     ORMATIO O NRC UNLESS THE CO                            SION D          OTHERWISE LIMIT f
I t
l i
l
\
l                                                                                                                               1 1
I l                                                                                                                          l l
l
;                                                                                                                             O I
i i
i i
i 51 i

i f
1 LIMITED     NRC UNL                                       HERWISE i
  /
l l
i l                                                                                    (
i                                                                                    s
[
3 i
t f
I t
52 f

    ~     "--"W.MA-i i
l
                                 .         ATTORN     LIENT I    TION
}     ,
DIRECT  RWISE LIMITED    RC UNLE            HE COMMI l
I I
I t
I l
I L
I I
I e
l l
l I
i 1
I 53 l
i i
l 5                                                                     . . - . -

l
       -                                                  E: ATTO      CLIENT IN                            TION THE COMMI                         N DIR       OTHERWISE LIMITED 0 NRC UN
                                                                                                                               - /
         ?.12       Preferred Approach The NRC staff's preferred approach for the use of financial incentives includes:
: 1.                  Impose civil penalties to encourage financially-qualified licensees to comply with NRC orders and requirements consistent with NRC's established enforcement policy in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 2.
: 2.                  Grandfather completed decommissioning actions from the need for future cleanup resulting from NRC requirements and (if possible) EPA standards issued under the Atomic Energy Act, provided that the decommissioning actions were completed in accordance with all relevant requirements and criteria at the time and no new information has arisen indicating that cleanup was not conducted appropriately.
: 3.                  I= pose licenses on unlicensed persons in possession of source,                             byproduct or special nuclear material at a contaminated sitt if those persons are financially qualified and competent tokomplete cleanup of the contaminated sites and if cleanup is not progressing in a timely and safe manner.
M 54

a 2
f 1
I                                           DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR APPLICABILITY TO                                  )
i i              DEVELOPMENT OF NRC DEC0ttilSS10NING SITE CHARACTERIZATION GUIDANCE                                  i t
I Standard format and Content of Decomissioning Plans for Licensees Under 10 CTR Parts 30, 40, and 70, Regulatory Guide 3.65, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.                                                                       j j           Guid:nce Manual for Con' ducting Radiological Surveys in Support of                                      l i
License Termination, Draft NUREG/CR-XXXX, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l'
d,                       Comission.
b           Standard Review Plan for UMTRCA Title 1 Mill Tailings Remedial Action Plans, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Division of Waste l
Management, October 1985.
Standard format and Content for Documentation of Remedial Action i                          Selection at Title 1 Uranius Mill Tailings Sites, Division of Low-Level Waste Management And Decomissioning, February 1989.
5           Guidance on the Application of Quality Assurance for Characterizing a Low-level Radianctive Waste Disposal Site," NUREG 1383, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, October 1990.
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and feasibility Studies under CERCLA," Interim Final EPA /540/G-89/004, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. October 1988.
s Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites-A Manual, Volume 1-Site l
l Investigations," EPA /600/4-84/075, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1985.                                                         .
1 i            Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocol: Techniques And Strategies, EPA-600/4-83 020, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1983.
Risk Assessnent Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Hunan Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interin Final EPA /540/1-89/002, U.S.
#                             Environmental Protection Agency, December 1989.                                        ;
l j
Site Characterization Mandbook, DOE /LLW-67T, U.S. Department of Energy, June 1988.
UMTRA Technical Approach Document, Draft Revision, DOE Guidance Manua1,
!                             U.S. Department of Energy, May 1989.
Survey and Site Assessment Manual for the ORAU fnvironmental Survey and Site Assessment Progran,' Dak Ridge Associated Universities, March 1990.                               ,,,
Addendum A i
1 i
i

I l
b
:                                                                                                                                                                                I
]       .
    ~
 ~
OTE:             ATTORNE                        IENT INFCRMA LIM     D TO NRC UNLESS                                    COMMISS                                   JER$fiSE j                                                                                                                                                                                 i r
1                                       DRAFT OUTLINE OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN GUIDANCE l
4
: 1. Introduction                                                                                                                           l 1.1 Purpose of Report l                                           1.2 Site Background i
1.2.1 Site Description 1.2.2 Site History                                                                                                            (
1.2.3 Previous Investigations                                                                                                l
!                                     2. Physical Characteristics of Site 2.1 Surface Features l                                           2.2 Meteorology 2                                           2.3 Surface-Water Hydrology
                                           '2.4 Geology-f                                           2.5 Demography and Land Use
!-                                                                                                                                                                               1 4                                           2.6 Hydrogeology                                                                                                                    ,
!                                     3. Extent and concentration of contamination 4                                           3.1 Soils and Vadose Zone                                                                                                            l
!                                           3.2 Ground Water 3.3 Surface Water and Sediments 3.4 Structures and Equipment                                                                                                        J l
4
: 4. Proposed Remedial Action Methodology 4                                     5. Dose Assessment t                                            5.1 Assessment of Dose to Public From i                                                 Current Site contamination i
5.2 Preliminary Assessment of Dose to Public From Residual Radioactivity Projected to Remain l
:                                                 Onsite After Remediation
: 6. Additional Hydrogeological Site Characterization
                                         . Requirements to Evaluate Proposal to Remediate by Onsite Burial:
6.1 Thickness of unsaturated zone below contamination i-                                           6.2 Contaminated soil zone dimensions 6.3 Contaminated zone area 4                                             6.4 Cover thickness l                                             6.5 Aquifer thickness 1
6.6 Saturated zone hydraulic conductivity 6.7 Gradient of water table 6.8 Bulk density of-all soil 6.9 Distribution coefficient 6.10 Erosion rate of cover and contaminated material
;                                            .6.11 Unsaturated zone hydraulic conductivity i                                             6.12' Total porosity of all zones 6.13 Effective porosity all-zones 4
6.14 Moisture content all unsaturated zones                                                       Addendum B                      l l
I
      .                                                                                                          . . . - - . . . , , . ,,-                 .-.        . . . _ ,}}