ML053480052

Enclosure - Review Stakeholder Comments/Observations from Annual Decommissioning Briefing - 200500260

ML053480052
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee, Trojan
Issue date:	12/29/2005
From:	Bill Dean NRC/EDO/AO
To:	David Brown, Castleman P, Hatchett G, Olivier J, Tadesse R, Thoma J NRC/OCM
Orlando D, NMSS/DWM, 301-415-6749
Shared Package
ML053630301	List: ML053480052 ML053630302
References
Download: ML053480052 (14)

Text

RESPONSE TO SRM ON ANNUAL DECOMMISSIONING BRIEFING In the Staff Requirements Memorandum resulting from the staffs annual briefing on the status of the Decommissioning Program (M051018), the Commission directed the staff to:

1. Evaluate the lessons learned from the decommissioning of Maine Yankee and Trojan to look for ways to improve stakeholder interactions in NRCs decommissioning activities.; and

2. Review the recommendations and observations of the stakeholders and informally provide its analysis, with recommendations, as appropriate, to the Commission.

1. Lessons Learned from Maine Yankee and Trojan Decommissioning:

The staff has reviewed the Trojan and Maine Yankee decommissioning process to determine if there are any lessons to be learned, including ways to improve stakeholder interactions in NRCs decommissioning activities. Lessons learned from the Maine Yankee and Trojan decommissioning process are being included in the lessons learned section of the enhanced decommissioning webpage.

Lessons learned from the decommissioning of the Trojan and Maine Yankee facilities include the benefits of early interaction and agreement on future decommissioning activities, agreement on the format and content of decommissioning documents and the need for good quality control programs. Staff is also working with the nuclear industry and other stakeholders to compile and make available lessons learned for all aspects of decommissioning.

2. Summary of Stakeholder Issues and Comments from the Annual Decommissioning Program Briefing October 18, 2005:

The staffs analysis of the stakeholder recommendations and observations from the briefing, including staff actions or recommendations regarding each of the recommendations and observations is in the table below.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

1. Operating plan inspection to reduce future Staff analyzed this issue in SECY-03-0069 and None - staff is already implementing the decommissioning problems in legacy sites. the Commission approved the staff's stakeholder's recommendation.

Its going to save - pay large benefits in the recommendation for developing inspection future. HAAS procedures for operating facilities to address issues that could complicate decommissioning.

This activity is being managed under the Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan, and includes developing guidance for inspections and enforcement and for a rulemaking to prevent "future legacy sites."

2. ...continuing to improve license Staff included a 12 month Decommissioning None - staff is already implementing the termination plan approval process. ...target of Plan (DP) and License Termination Plan (LTP) stakeholder's recommendation.

under 12 months is probably in order. HAAS review target in its FY 2005 Operating Plan.

This metric is included in the FY 2006 Op Plan and will be included in all future Op plans. In addition, the staff has established a Performance measure in the FY 2007 "Blue Book" of reducing the review time for LTPs by 30% over the next 3 years.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

3. I think its important to continue to improve Staff has taken several initiatives to improve the Staff will continue to seek opportunities to the final site survey process. HAAS approach to the final site survey process. The improve the final site survey process. Staff is staff now relies on side-by-side sampling during identifying "lessons learned" from all major the licensee's final surveys and reviews of licensing actions, including license licensee's quality assurance programs in lieu of terminations, and has a process, the performing confirmatory surveys at the Integrated Decommissioning Improvement completion of the decommissioning. (This Plan (IDIP1), for reviewing and developing issue was discussed as a "lesson learned" in improvement actions from lessons learned.

Regulatory Issues Summary (RIS) 2002-02 and the "Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance" NUREG-1757 Volume 2, and has been included as guidance in NUREG-1757, Supplement 1.) The staff has established a process whereby the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education can, on an emergency basis, perform confirmatory sampling with only 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> notice, instead of the usual 2-4 week timeframe. Finally, the staff has used State inspectors to supplement the NRC inspectors conducting side-by-side sampling.

1 During FY 2005, the first Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP) was prepared for the Decommissioning Program. The IDIP documented improvements completed in FY 2004 and plans for additional improvements during FY 2005-FY 2007. The IDIP integrated three sets of improvements: regulatory improvements to resolve issues related to implementing 10 CFR 20 Subpart E; program management improvements resulting from the recommendations in the staffs 2003 Decommissioning Program Evaluation; and, improvements directed by the Commission after the October 2004 annual briefing on the status of the Decommissioning Program. The plan includes a description of each improvement and associated milestones, schedules, and staff assignments. The Operating Plan is used to track the key milestones and schedules and is periodically revised using an approach that consists of a repeating cycle of four steps: 1) assess program; 2) plan improvements; 3) conduct improvements; and 4) measure and reassess program. A revision is planned for early in FY 2006 to update plans for work during FY 2006 and FY 2007. The IDIP will also be revised in FY 2007 to reflect the results of the FY 2006 OMB PART review. The first step for assessing the program involves identifying lessons learned and staff and stakeholder recommendations for improving the program.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

4. ...continue to improve the communication Staff has been working on improving Staff will continue to seek opportunities to with local stakeholders. HAAS communications with all stakeholders for the improve stakeholder communications. Staff past several years. Staff developed and is identifying "lessons learned" from all major maintains site- and issue- specific licensing actions and will incorporate communications plans for each materials and improvements using the IDIP process.

power reactor site. These plans provide tools that the staff uses to plan public outreach activities for each site. In 2005, the staff revised the format of the annual Decommissioning Program Annual report and will publish it as a NUREG document in even years. Staff completed several enhancements to the Decommissioning Website including providing information on the decommissioning process for materials and reactor sites, links to site specific information and documents, regulations, guidance, and other program documents. Staff also developed a decommissioning brochure for distribution at public meetings.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

5. Capture lesson learned. HAAS In 2005, staff initiated an effort to identify, Staff will continue to seek to capture, record record and incorporate lessons learned from and incorporate lessons learned into ongoing ongoing decommissioning activities into current decommissioning activities and to ensure and future decommissioning projects and into that lessons learned are incorporated into the the designs for new facilities. This continues designs of future facilities, including work that the staff completed in 2002 and 2003 opportunities to improve the final site survey when the staff published decommissioning process. The staff is developing a rule to lessons learned in RIS 2002-02 and NUREG- prevent future legacy sites that will include a 1757. Staff has established liaisons with requirement to consider decommissioning in industry groups such as the Nuclear Energy the design of new facilities. The staff has Institute, Electric power Research Institute and begun listing lessons learned on the the Fuel Cycle Facility Forum and the enhanced decommissioning webpage and Agreement States to coordinate and share has been, and will continue to, meet with decommissioning lessons learned. In April industry and other groups to identify, record 2005, the staff held a workshop which focused and incorporate lessons learned into the on exchanging views on decommissioning decommissioning process. The IDIP is the lessons learned with NRC, industry and vehicle that the staff will use to review and Agreement States. develop improvements from these lessons learned.

6. Radwaste disposal options, your recent The comments pertain to the recently deferred None - staff does not intend to act on this and definite deferral of rulemaking relative to rulemaking on clearance. observation as the Commission has low-level radioactive waste is a bit of a instructed the staff to defer work on this disappointment. HAAS activity.

7. And lastly, we can never truly be This comment pertains to the high-level waste None - This comment is outside of the scope decommissioned until we can send our spent repository and is outside of the scope of the of the decommissioning program.

fuel offsite, spent fuel and greater than Class decommissioning program.

C waste disposal. It should be a huge priority for us, and I know that it is. HAAS

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

8. The first lesson has to do with flexibility This comment pertains to a site-specific issue None with respect to the site-specific issue and interpretation of regulation and regulatory about the grandfathering provisions of 10 CFR raised by the stakeholder, as the issue has guidance. Overly conservative interpretation 20, Subpart E. Specifically, it was unclear if a been resolved.

of regulations that trigger the license facility that was grandfathered under Subpart E termination rule has virtually stalled the that later requested a modification to its decommissioning of one of our sites, which is cleanup approach would have to re-submit a currently being decommissioned under the DP and be subject to the provisions of 10 CFR SDMP program. LUX 20.1402. NRC OGC staff worked with the licensee's counsel and determined that, in this case, the site could continue to be decommissioned as a grandfathered site.

9. Another lesson we learned is that we need This comment pertains more to actions by the Staff will include this lesson learned in the to characterize our sites with the licensee, not the NRC staff. However, lessons learned website and consider how to decommissioning process in mind. LUX evaluation of the lesson learned will be included incorporate it into decommissioning guidance in the IDIP. in accordance with the IDIP process.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

10. And when NRC staff reviews Early in the Decommissioning Program, staff Staff will continue to use the risk-informed decommissioning plans at a very low level of recognized that the type and level of detail process to ensure that only information that detail, not only does it add a lot of time to the necessary to review and approve a DP or LTP is necessary is included in DPs or LTPs.

process, but it reduces the flexibility in would vary from site to site, based on the Staff will continue to review the information decommissioning. LUX potential risks associated with the site. Staff presented in the DP or LTP at a level of has established a risk-informed approach to the detail that ensures that the staff can development of DPs and LTPs in which the conclude that the proposed activities can be staff and licensees meet prior to and during the conducted in a manner that is protective of development of the DP or LTP in order to the public health and safety and the ensure that only the information necessary to environment.

ensure that the decommissioning can be conducted safely and with minimal adverse impacts on the environment and local communities is included in the DP or LTP. In addition, it relies on frequent meetings with licensees during the review of the DP or LTP to resolve technical or policy issues without requesting information via a Request for Additional Information. The approach helps focus the appropriate level of detail in the DP.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

11. ...the use of reasonable exposure This issue has been a topic of numerous Staff will continue to implement the scenarios is critical. LUX discussions within the decommissioning Commission's approved policy for licensees community for the past several years. This use of reasonably foreseeable land uses issue was analyzed in SECY-03-0069 and the instead of the most conservative potential Commission approved the staff's land use and will use its established recommendations to use reasonably methodology to review and approve DPs and foreseeable land use in lieu of more LTPs that use this approach.

conservative (usually farming) scenarios. Staff has developed an approach to reviewing the proposed future land use which is included in the recently published (for comment) supplement to NUREG-1757, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance. This approach evaluates the potential uses of the land for decades up to 100 years (in lieu of 1000 years), includes recommendations by local land use planning authorities and evaluates other, reasonable land use scenarios in order to allow the staff to make an informed decision on the appropriateness of the proposed land use. Using this approach, the staff has been successfully approving DPs and LTPs with reasonably foreseeable land use scenarios for the past few years and will continue to use this approach in the future.

12. ...DCGLs should be developed for all Guidance addressing this observation has been None - staff has already included this media and should consider intermedia included in all decommissioning guidance requirement in decommissioning guidance relationships. LUX developed by the staff since the inception of the and will continue to require it to be decommissioning program. addressed in DPs and LTPs.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

13. Regarding the NRC/EPA MOU process, The staff has discussed this issue with As appropriate, and on a case-by-case basis the memorandum of understanding, I just beg, representative of the Fuel Cycle Facility Forum the staff will involve licensees in the plead and urge the NRC to involve licensees and others to gain an understanding of their discussions with the Environmental in that process. LUX concerns. While the staff agrees that some Protection Agency on the staffs actions licensees may be able to provide valuable under the MOU. Draft letters to EPA will be information about their sites, the staffs shared with licensees for factual review.

responsibilities under the MOU cannot be influenced by licensees concerns or preferences regarding the manner in which the NRC staff carries out its responsibilities under the MOU, because it remains the NRC staffs responsibility to make the notifications in accordance with the processes that the NRC and EPA staffs have established under the MOU.

14. NRC staff should continue to attend Fuel Staff routinely attends meeting sponsored by Staff will continue to participate in the FCFF Cycle Facility Forum meetings. LUX industry groups, societal organizations and meeting and continue to participate in all public interest groups. Attendance at these industry meetings, as appropriate.

meetings is one of the activities tracked in the staff Operating Plan and supports the Safety and Openness Goals in the Strategic Plan.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

15. Also, some licensees have had portions This observation stems from some licensees Staff will continue to stress the need to of their sites released but were later told that confusion regarding the scope of the dose consider the contributions from all sources of the released area would have to be addressed modeling that must be performed to radioactivity at sites, including PSRs, during again prior to license termination. And demonstrate that a site meets the criteria in 10 the pre-DP/LTP meetings held with obviously, this causes some concerns CFR 20, Subpart E. During the operational licensees.

regarding finality. LUX phase of the facility, portions of the facility may be cleaned up and released as a partial site release (PSR). Potential doses from residual radioactive material on these PSRs must comply with 10 CFR Subpart E. When the facility enters decommissioning at the end of the operational phase of the facility, the potential doses from all previous PSRs must be included in the dose assessments for the license termination as the PSRs and the current site constitute the site as envisioned in the regulations. If licensees were allowed to exclude PSRs from the final site dose estimates it could lead to a situation whereby multiple, contiguous PSRs, each at the 10 CFR Subpart E level, would in the aggregate, result in doses that exceed NRCs criteria.

16. Finally, there is a lot of confusion among Staff is evaluating the disposal of material at Staff will incorporate any guidance resulting licensees regarding the disposition of licensed non-licensed sites pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002 from its analysis into decommissioning material at disposal facilities that are regulated and is developing guidance to allow the staff guidance and as appropriate will inform by environmental regulatory agencies at non- and licensees to use this disposal approach licensees of this guidance when it has been licensed facilities, and I feel that should be more effectively. developed cleared up. LUX

17. A comprehensive characterization would have made decommissioning more effective See #9, above. See #9, above.

and efficient. MAIERS

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

18. Another lesson is strict application of Reg NRC staff typically allows the use of the Reg None.

Guide 1.86 and NUREG-5849 criteria would Guide 1.86 values as cleanup values and the require most radiological contaminated survey approaches discussed in NUREG-5849 buildings to be demolished. MAIERS only for those sites that have been grandfathered under 10 CFR 20 Subpart E.

Any sites not addressed under the grandfathering provisions of 10 CFR 20 Subpart E would be required to meet the 25 mrem/year, all pathways requirements in Part

20. In addition, the staff no longer endorses the survey approaches in NUREG-5849 and instead relies on the approaches discussed in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM).

19. In process inspections and on-going interactions between the licensee and regulator were critical for the timely completion See #3 and #12, above. See #3 and #12, above.

of this project. MAIERS

20. I think that these community advisory Staff agrees that licensees should actively Staff will continue to stress the need for panels are important parts of the process. interact with and seek input from their local licensees to interact with local stakeholders HUDSON stakeholders. As discussed in #4 above, the and continue to provide stakeholders with the staff has a process in place to ensure that local opportunity to participate in the stakeholders are aware of the NRC staff decommissioning process as described in actions as well as their opportunities to the NRC regulations and staff guidance.

participate in the process. In NUREG-1757, and in draft Supplement 1 to this NUREG, the staff provides detailed information about interacting with, and obtaining public input to the decommissioning project for restricted use sites that may be useful to other sites.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

21. Participating in these meetings was As appropriate, staff has worked with licensees Staff will continue to provide all publicly sometimes frustrating because I know under and stakeholders to ensure that access to site available information in accordance with the regulatory process that we werent getting information is available to any interested NRCs regulations and will continue to work all the information all the time. HUDSON individuals. Staff makes all decommissioning with licensees and stakeholders to facilitate documentation publicly available, unless the providing information to any interested licensee can demonstrate that it should be individual.

withheld under the NRCs regulations.

However, the staff has limited capacity to compel a licensee to provide information to others.

22. I really do think that advisory panels The staff does not believe that it is appropriate Staff will continue to provide advice and need some level to be institutionalized, but to place specific requirements on how a site- guidance on stakeholder involvement, but will they need also to be flexible so that they can specific advisory board (SSAB) is set up or not initiate the development of a requirement truly represent the public interest at individual managed. This should be controlled by the to form an SSAB at every decommissioning sites. HUDSON licensee and the local stakeholders, with site.

guidance on approaches that have been successful being provided by NRC. The staff believes that an SSAB is one appropriate mechanism for local stakeholder involvement, but also recognizes that this may not be appropriate in all situations. This was discussed in the Statements of Consideration for 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, and in NUREG-1757 (in the context of the requirements for releasing sites with restrictions on future site use).

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

23. I think it be very worthwhile to do some RESRAD-Build was developed by the Argonne Staff does not intend to sponsor the additional work and put out some additional National Laboratory (ANL). Both RESRAD and development of additional guidance on the guidance on the use of the RESRAD Build RESRAD-build were converted to probabilistic use of RESRAD-Build at this time. However, model. LUX versions in 2000. At that time, NRC issued through the current NRC Contract with ANL NUREG/CR-6697, "Development of staff plans to develop web-based Probabilistic RESRAD 6.0 and RESRAD-BUILD tutorial/training for individuals that cannot 3.0 Computer Codes," December, 2000, and attend the annual DOE and NRC sponsored NUREG/CR-6692, "Probabilistic Modules for training classes. Current plans are to have the RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD Computer ANL develop this training after the other Codes, User Guide," November, 2000. higher priority tasks for developing the RESRAD-OFFSITE code and the The first document describes the development methodology for probabilistic analysis of of the probabilistic codes and provides the future land use scenarios for realistically equations, assumptions, default parameter conservative dose analysis are completed.

values, distributions, etc. The second document provides application guidance (i.e.,

how to make it run). In addition, NRC provides training courses twice a year (through NMSS and the TDC), one at headquarters and one in one of the Regions. The Department of Energy (DOE) also provides training. There is a RESRAD web site that can also be consulted to provide access to the guidance material and direct questions to the Argonne staff.

Currently, there are no commercial training providers for the use of RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD codes. However, licensees and people in the private sector can, for a registration fee, attend the three or four DOE and NRC sponsored and approved annual training classes.

ISSUE/SOURCE DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION (from transcript)

24. Flexibility in the interpretation application As discussed above, staff has been and will As new opportunities to exercise flexibility in of regulations and regulatory guidance, I continue to seek opportunities to exercise the decommissioning process are identified, would place very high, as well as what I term flexibility in its interpretations of the Agencys staff will consider how to incorporate them performance-based decommissioning where requirements, while ensuring that an adequate into decommissioning guidance in the level of specificity required in the level of safety is maintained, as discussed in accordance with the IDIP process.

decommissioning plan can be reduced to the staffs recommendations from the analysis increase the flexibility in the adapting the of LTR implementation issues.

decommissioning process to what you encounter as you perform the decommissioning. LUX.

25. [Regarding inspections to prevent future decommissioning problems and addressing spills at site as soon as possible.] That (a leak at Indian Point) was significant, very rapid See #1, above. See #1, above.

follow-up on that. Our history has shown that when you have that kind of event happening, its going to pay you huge dividends when you get into decommissioning to make sure you tie that up very quickly. HAAS