ML20141G938

Notation Vote Approving W/Comments on SECY-97-046A Re Final Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination

ML20141G938
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/08/1997
From:	Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20141G895	List: ML20141G891 ML20141G897 ML20141G907 ML20141G913 ML20141G923 ML20141G938
References
SECY-97-046A-C, SECY-97-46A-C, NUDOCS 9705230095
Download: ML20141G938 (12)

Text

. . . _ ._ .

AFFIRMATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary l FROM: COM"TSSIONER MCGAFFIGAN

SUBJECT:

SECY-97-046A- FINAL RULE ON RADIOLOGICAL 9 CRITERIA FOR LICENSE TERMINATION l

Approved X w/cmts Disapproved Abstain i

Not Participating Request Discussion I

COMMENTS: f My comments are attached.  ;

i

. n -

SIGNATfJlts V Release Vote /6 / '

'DATE Withhold vote / /

Entered on "AS" Yes N No 9705230095 970521  !

PDR COMMS NRCC '

CORRESPONDENCE PDR

Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-97-046A:

I have reviewed many of the public comments, the GEIS and regulatory analysis and other supporting material along with the pro)osed final rule from the staff and, in particular, the comments provided ay EPA on the proposed final rule. In addition. I attended the EPA staff - NRC staff meeting on April 2

21, 1997 and I had informal discussions with EPA officials on the margins of that meeting. I heard no new information from EPA that would undermine the staff's technical proposal, and, in fact. I was struck by the EPA staff's lack of substantive, technical and scientific support for its )osition on the all-pathways standard and the se)arate groundwater standard w1ich it espouses.

Based on my review, I have tie following comments and positions on the proposals in SECY-97-046A --

1. I approve the propcsed final rule on radiological criteria for license termination. I consider the proposed all-pathways unrestricted use dose limit of 25 mrem / year' coupled w th a requirement to reduce residual radioactivity to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable to be very conservative but recognize the flexibility provided by the tiered approach described in the rule.

25 mrem / year is a conservative fraction of the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 100 mrem / year and is extremely conservative when compared to the 10 CFR Part 35 3atient release limit of 500 mrem for an individual member of t1e public. It is also conservative when compared to the average individual doses received from radon (200 mrem /yr). from other natural background radiation (100 mrem /yr), and from medical diagnosis (53 mrem /yr). Many individuals receive far higher radiation doses from radon and other natural background radiation than these averages. These facts, combined with statements by BEIR V that it is possible that there may be no risks from radiation exposure comparable to external natural background, serve to emphasize the need for i i

radiation dose limits and standards that are based on risk and consider l cost-benefit and socio-economic factors regardless of the radiation source.

I l

1 Despite our offer to meet with EPA, I understand that high level EPA officials have not sought a meeting with the Commission l to discuss their concerns over the NRC's proposed final rule. l 8 While a few commenters, including EPA, supported the 15 mrem / year limit and some ot;hers opposed it as being too high, the majority of commenters favored a much higher limit (e.g. , up to 100 mrem / year) based on national and international standards, the costs the and technical difficulties associated with decommissioning, level, the low lack of demonstrable health effects at this probability of exposure to multiple sources resulting in a dose exceeding 100 mrem / year, and natural background radiation levels I (NUREG/CR-6353, pp. 14-15).

2 In addition. the imposition of ALARA requirements for unrestricted release of a facility will further reduce the potential dose from most decommissioned facilities. These features will provide more than adequate protection of the public health and safety.  ;

2. I approve the staff's proposal to reject separate groundwater MCL standards proposed by EPA. I fully agree with Commissioner Dicus and the staff's views that the separate MCL standards were inappropriately derived and not soundly-based from a technical standpoint that separate groundwater standards are unnecessary, and that groundwater used for drinking water will be adequately protected by our all-pathways standard in the proposed final rule. Beyond that. the staff's analysis in the draft final generic environmemal impact statement clearly indicates that the imposition of separate groundwater standards could make cleanup for some sites extremely difficult and costly. I believe that this would undermine our efforts to obtain timely remediation of such sites.

3. I approve the staff's proposal to use alternate criteria for certain difficult sites. The staff is being responsive to Commission guidance that they should build into our regulatory framework (rules, standard review plans regulatory guides, etc.) how they will systematically deal

, with difficult cases. The alternative to the use of alternate criteria as proposed in section 20.1404 would be to use the broad Part 20 exemption at 20.2301 for difficult cases, on a case by case basis, but without a detailed framework for deciding when an exemption is warranted. This is not a good alternative in my view. I would further note that the October 1996 version of the EPA draft clean-up rule, the last version of the draft rule before it was withdrawn, also recognized the need to deal with difficult cases (chrough technical impracticability waivers, etc.) within the context of their rule and not through exemptions. As the staff noted in its April 28, 1997 memorandum on the "RESULTS OF APRIL 21. 1997 NRC - EPA MEETING ON DRAFT FINAL RULE '

ON RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING." the intent of the alternate criteria approach is to codify provisions for dealing with ,

problem sites rather than force licensees to seek exemptions from the rule. The proposed alternate criteria approach contains a]propriate restrictions and controls, and it is likely to be pursued )y licensees and approved by the Commission only rarely.

I do note that the alternate criteria approach is proposed for application both to sites that will be released for unrestricted use and to sites that will be subjected to institutional controls or use restrictions. I had considered suggesting that the use of alternate criteria not be permitted for sites pro)osed for release for unrestricted use because af a concern tlat, through the use of alternate criteria, we could theoretically release sites for unrestricted use with residual contamination dose levels up to 100 mrem /yr. However, as a  !

practical matter, prohibiting the application of alternate criteria to sites proposed for unrestricted release could force a site cleaned up to, say, a 28 mrem /yr. level to be subjected to institutional controls or use restrictions in order to have its license terminated.

Institutional or restricted use controls would not make sense for such a i

l l

T. 3 site. In view of this )otentially absurd result. I will not propose that we modify any of t1e proposals for the application of alternate .

criteria. I do suggest, however, that we ask the staff to prepare regulatory guidance for the application of alternate criteria and language in the Statement of. Considerations that will reflect the  :

Commission's intent to limit the alternate criteria that will be '

4 accepted for sites proposed for unrestricted use to values that are relatively close (e.g., within 5 to 10 mrem /yr.) to our standard limit

~

of 25 mrem /yr. In addition, to ensure that s)ecial attention is given to any use.of alternate cdteria, I suggest tlat we modify the final regulations to require review by the Commission itself in any case where alternate criteria may be appitcd. For this purpose, I propose that we modify section 20.1404 as follows (changes are in bold):

20.1404 Alternate criteria for license termination.

~

(a) The Commission may . .

(1) Provides assurance that . . .

(2) Has employed . . .

(3) Reduced doses to . . . .

(b) The use of alternate criteria to terminate a license requires the approval of the Commission after consideration of the NRC staff s recommendations that will address comments provided by the _'

. Environmental Protection Agency and any public comments submitted

~

pursuant to section 20.1405.

4. As to the use of Site Specific Advisory Boards, I support the use of such boards during the decision making process but believe that the rather prescriptive requirements contained in the 1994 proposed rule F would unnecessarily constrain licensees and may not be necessary in all cases. I believe that the final rule should be modified to include some specific arovisions on how a licensee should seek the advice of affected parties w1en pro]osing to decommission by restricting use of a site as required by 10 C:R 20.1403(d). In this regard, I aropose that section i

20.1403(d) be modified as follows (changes are in bold):

(d) .The licensee has . . . advice.

(A) Licensees proposing to decomission by restricting use of the site shall-seek advice from such affected parties regarding the following matters concerning the proposed decommissioning--

- (1) . . . .

(i) . . .:

. .(ii) . . .:

, -(iii) . . . :

(2)-. . .  :

(B) In seeking advice on the issues identified in Section 20.1403(d)(A), the licensee shall provide for:

--- - - - . .= - .- ._ . _ . - . -. . ..

'4 I

(1) participation by representatives of a broad cross section of community interests who may be affected by the decomissioning: .

- (2) an opportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion on the issues by the participants represented; and ..

(3) a publicly available summary of the results of all such discussions, including a description of the individual viewpoints of the participants on the issues and the extent of agreement and disagreement among the participants on the issues; and Conforming changes are needed to other regulations that reference this section.

In addition to this change. I suggest that the staff should modify the Statements of Consideration (SOC) accompanying the final rule to indicate that the staff will receive and review public comments gathered by the licensee prior to final NRC action on the licensee's request for license termination. The SOC should also describe the other '

opportunities for NRC interaction with the public on individual site decomissioning applications.

1

5. To provide perspective for the public on the conservatism in the primary dose limit we would establish in this final rule, and to provide additional illustrations understandable to the public, the Public Announcement should be modified to include additional examples of sources of radiation exposure. such as the ones described above.

6. The staff indicates that the implementation date for the rule depends on the development of related guidance documents and estiaates this date to be one year from the effective date of the rule. I believe that the  !

staff should consider reducing the time between these two dates since l 1

the rule will probably not become effective until this fall due to the necessary OMB clearance process. Significant progress could be made on  ;

the guidance between now and then. In addition, the staff was previously directed to submit the guidance documents to the Commission no later than one year from submitting the proposed final rule (2/98).

Thus, it ap> ears that the implementation date could be less than one year from t1e effective date.

i

7. Regarding paragraph 9 of Commissioner Diaz's vote and paragraph 2 of ,

Commissioner Dicus' vote. I believe that the division II level of i compatibility that the staff proposes for the rule is appropriate for 1 the following reasons: l I do not consider the exposure levels allowed by this rule to be i a) '

" radiation protection standards." Rather, these limits are considered ample and sufficient. but not necessary, to ensure that the radiation exposure from decommissioned sites does not, in combination with other sources of radiation, routinely ca ise a member of the public to exceed

N

. 5 In addition, it the 100 mrem /yr public dose limit described in Part 20.

is )ossible that higher or lower regulatory limits could also provide suc1 assurance.

b) The 1994 proposed rule did not identify a compatibility level. The final rule, including the division II compatibility designation, was discussed with Agreement State reprecantatives during December 1996, and, I understand, there was generai 9;pport for what the staff proposed. .I believe that further coordination with the Agreement States would be needed to solicit their input prior to any decision to change the compatibility designation to level I.

c) I do not agree that decommissioning activities have transboundary implications to the degree that NRC should impose its standards to "even out" the risks to citizens of individual States. The level of risk to citizens nationwide already varies due to the fact that not all NRC recairements are compatibility level I. States regulate non-AEA material anc radiation sources to tarying degrees, certain States are designated as host States for dispo',al of low-level waste and as such will receive wastes from other Stater., and interstate shipments of saent nuclear fuei, iedctor fuel elements, sealed sources, and radioplarmaceuticals occur routinely in some States while not at all in others.

Decommissioning activities should have rrostly local effects and  :

variations in transboundary effects from decommissioning activities In  !

should be less than the variatians from these other activities. '

addition, requirements with transboundary implications are ncrmally assigned a compatibility level II.

d) Since there is no demonstrated need for strict nationwide uniformity in what are basically localized site decommissioning activities, I do not believe that a division I level of compatibility can be justified.

Conversely. I find it extremely difficult to justify an NRC position that Agreement Stetes cannot be per"iit+ad to implement more stringent standards than the NRC's in these cases. At least in the case of cleanup standards there is no health and safety basis for that position. In any event, based on the data presented in the final generic environmental impact statement, it is doubtful that, as a

)ractical matter, the Agreement States will find it necessary or 3eneficial to deviate from the limits described in this rule.

Therefore, I do not see the need to make this rule a com3atibility level I and believe that Agreement States should be provided t1e flexibility to make their own determinations based, in part, on local needs and conditions.

(e) Finally, I fear that forcing the Agraement States into strict cnnpatibility where, as here,' that compacibility designation is not necessary will cause us to lose a significant part of the Agreement State support that we.now have for our proposed final rule. Recognizing that our final rule may.be controversial. I believe that we jeopardize some of the support we currently have by making an unnecessary compatibility designation.

i

o "

)

j 6

8. Regarding paragraphs 6 and 7 of Commissioner Diaz's vote. I do not believe that this rule should further address specific radiological  !

criteria for uranium and thorium mills and in-situ leach facilities at this time. Such an approach could result in portions of these sites l being subject to criteria different from those currently described in Part 40, Ap]endix A for radium contamination at these sites. In addition, tie issues associated with these types of facilities are i complex and will necessitate re-evaluation of our current regulatory program as mandated under the Uranium Mill Tailings and Radiation '

Control Act. A separate rulemaking initiative appears warranted and should be pursued as resources allow. l

9. Regarding comment no. 3 of Commissioner Diaz's vote. I do not believe that the language contained in the 1994 proposed rule at section 20.1402(a), should be restored in the final rule. That language states an objective, then recognizes the impracticality of achieving such an objective or even measuring the achievement of such an objective. Such  ;

language is simply not rule language because it is a philosophical ,

l statement, and it does not require action on the part of the licensee.

J

\

.- l l

i

COMMISSIONER McGIFFIGAN'S COMMENTS ON THE SRM ON SECY-97-046A I would prefer that the draf t final rule not be modified to exclude uranium and thoriuin mills and in-situ leach facilities since I believe that the proposed decommissioning criteria represent a logical and technically defensible approach. However, if the majority of the Commission is in favor of excluding these f acilities f rom this rule, I propose that item 14 of the attachment to the SRM be modified as follows:

Insert B (item 14).

The scope of the final rule should be revised to exclude facilities that are currently subject to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. The Commission has considered the difficulties associated with the decommissioning of these unique f acilities some of which are also subject to EPA standards under UMTRCA and is concerned that the complexities of this issue have been

' overshadowed by other provisions of the rule. Therefore, the commission believes that this aspect of the rule warrants additional consideration by NRC and the affected parties.

Without prejudice to the approach described in SECY-97-046A and on an expedited basis, the staff should develop a rule which addresses license termination for these facilities. In the interim, the staff should continue its current practice for decommissioning uranium and thorium mills and in-situ leach facilities.

Item 7 of the attachment should be modified to augment the public announcement as follows:

Insert A (item 7).

The Public Announcement should be modified to include a general discussion of the Commission's position, as described in this SRM, on the 25 mrem /yr limit, groundwater protection, alternate criterie, public participation and compatibility.

In addition, the announcement should include additional illustrations of an individual's average exposure to typical sources of radiation (e.g., medical diagnosis at 53 mrem /yr) to provide perspective for the public on the conservatism in the 25 mrem /yr limit.

In addition, other mo :e minor edits are attached.

?

q - b N I]

Edward Mcpaiffitjan 5/19/97

I i

. q

l I

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON FINAL RULE ON RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA  !

FOR LICENSE TERMINATION (SECY 97-046A) ]

l

1. The rule fus being completed on an expedited basis, and  !

-as.a' result, guidance documents are not available for Commission review. Since the guidance documents can have a

! significant impact on how this rule is implemented, .the staff  !

.should. provide all guidance documents to the Commission for l review and approval prior to pub 2ication no later than  !

February 21,-1998. .j l2. The Statement of Considerations (p. 41) and the text of the  !

rule-(p. 122) are inconsistent in describing and defining the 't term " Critical Group". The staff should resolve the .

inconsistency and make appropriate changes to the final rule  !

package prior.to publication.  ;

r lf'f{'Thefollowingchangestosection a 20.1404 (underlined) should be incorporated in the final rule:

20 1404 Alternate criteria for license termination (a) The Commiss. ion may ...

(1) Provides assurance that ...

(2) Has employed ...

(3) Reduced doses to ....

i E lhl Licensees prooosina to decommission by use of alternate criteria to terminate a license oursuant

. to caracraoh (a) of th:.s section shall seek advice

! from affected parties Gn this accroach. In seekina x such advice. the licensee shall orovide for:

2 (1) carticipation by reoresentatives of a 4'

broad cross section of community interests 1 .

who may be affected by the decommissionina; i

"~

'l" * - (2) an occortunity for a comorehensive, collective discussion on the issues by the

' 'g ___ ,,carticicants reoresented: and

't" "- 13) a oublicly available summarv of the a results'of all such~ discussions, includino l l

[ a descriotion of the individual-viewooints

, of the carticicants on the issues and the extent of aareement and disaareement amona the carticicants on the issuest and i

t

Jgl The use of alternate criteria to terminate a license recuires the accroval of the Commission after consideration of the NRC staff's recommendatioDH that will address any comments orovided by the Environmental Protection Acency and any uublic comments submitted oursuant to section 20.1405.

j$ j[. The following change'(underlined) to section 20.14 05 (a) should be incorporated in the final' rule:

(a) Notify and solicit comments from the Environmental Protection Acency, local and state ....

s3fFI The following changes to section 20.1403(d) (underlined) should be incorporated in the final rule:

(d) The licensee has ... advice.

lAl Licensees proposing to decommissi.on by restricting use of the site shall seek advice from such affected parties regarding the following

- matters concerning the proposed decommissioning--

(1) ....

(i)...; .

(ii) ...;

(iii) ...;

(2) ...;

(B) In seekina advice on the issues identified in Section 2 0.14 03 (d) ( A) , the licensee shall orovide fQIl

11) carticipation by reoresentatives of a broad cross section of community interests who may be affected by the decommissionino:

(2) an occortunity for a comorehensive.

collective discussion on the issues by the particicants represented; and (3) a publicly available summary of the rgsults of all such discussions, includino a descriotion of the individual viewooints of the carticicants on the issues and the extent of acreement and disaareement amono the carticicants on the issues; and (e) ....

6. Conforming changes to reflect the revisions in 3 and 4 above are needed in other regulations that reference these sections. The staff should also modify the Statement of Considerations accompanying the final rule to indicate that the otaff will receive and review public comments gathered by the licensee prior to final NRC action on the licensee's request for license termination. The Statement of C

e

• 1

, i Considerations should also describe'the other opportunities ,

for NRC interaction with the public on individual site decommissioning applications.

spty e -- I

. J 7. To provide perspective for the public on the conservatism in ,

the primary dose' limit established in this final rule and to ]

? provide additional illustrations understandable to the ,

"'\

Ay'8 h public, the Public Announcement should be modified to include

-- additional examples of sources of radiation exposure.

~

8. A note should be made in the analysis of comments that EPA'.s '

MCLs are based upon outmoded modeling that does not ref7.ect '

current understandings of the uptake and doses resulting from lbo Imc m n -uptakes of radionuclides through drinking water.

O

-9. The Regulatory: Analysis, on pages 3 and 4, states that the ,

criteria would not apply to sites which have submitted a ,

sufficient license termination plan or decommissioning plan  !

. within (6 months after the effective date of the final rule]

and such a plan is approved by NRC within [18 months af ter the effective date of the final rule). These times are 12 and 24 months respectively in the Federal Recister. Staff "

i

.should clarify these times,

10. In the GEIS, p.3-3, citation of regulations, categorization of facilities, item 1, it is stated that sealed source users are licensed under Parts 30, 33, and 35, but did not include  ;

Parts 34, 36, or 39. In item 2, it cites 'crts 30, 33, and 35 in discussion of short-lived byproduct adionuclides, but does not include Part 39 for I-131 use. .ae GEIS should list .

all the parts of the regulations, or state " licensed  ;

pursuant to Part 30" (such as in sections 30.31 and 30.34).  ;

11. The Commission is aware that there are peculiarities in the models used for site release in that there is area dependence  :

in the dose calculations. The NRC staff should develop l comprehensive guidance on how previously released portions of licensed sites may need to be revisited to .g' '

address this issue. v '? 1 l 4 gu p.4, q,s , . . p . m,en r  ;. ...

12. The guidance the staff develops to implement [the final rule  ;

shoulcL-address- th& matter-of-publ-ic-participat-ion-andy--in  ;

particulas, should include criteria for establishing and j using Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs). The criteria i should be such that the expected starting point in providing l an opportunity for public participation would be the l establishment of an SSAB;.however, the criteria should  :

. delineate those situations in which an SSAB would not be j appropriate.

13. Prior. to submitting the text of the final' rule to the Federal Recister, section F.6.3 of the Statement of Considerations should be revised to -clarify the , Commission's decision with r respect to radon. du sunt /%g4 p, p c l

i

~

4. The staff sh'ould modify the final rule to exempt uranium v mills based on the difficulties associated with applying this p

standard to a relatively small number of licensed facilities surrounded by large tracts of land subject to EPA standards V,k

.p under UMTRCA. The staff should provide to the Commission, on y an expedited basis, a proposed rulemaking package to amend cr i 10 CFR Part 40 to establish radiological criteria for

'f' '

{

decommissioning of uranium mills and in-situ leaching

~

i facilities.

u J

1

}

,.~.

r::  :.n '

.1UC;.E R ;EGULATOFY COMMISS!bN ..' mdA:

'

• M y -

i-M9 M J:

. . . , :: R i f r. .< 10:

f.

5. May 21, 1997

• ,',,*y SECRETAM MEMOPJJJDUM TO : L. Joseph-Callan ExecupiveDirectorforOperations FROM: John [d [ Ho l'e' '

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION, 9:30 A.M. WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1997, COMMISSIONERS CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAG (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I. SECY 97-046A - FINAL RULE ON RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR LICENSE TERMINATION The Commission

• approved a final rule which would revise 10 CFR Part 20 to provide specific radiological criteria for the decommissioning of lands and structures at NRC-regulated facilities and to establish a clear and consistent regulatory basis for determining the extent ~to which lands and structures  :

must be remediated before decommissioning of a site can be considered complete and the license terminated. In reaching its decision to approve the final rule, the Commission addressed the l l

following specific issues: 1 e Dose Criteria for Release of a Site to Unrestricted Use The Commission adopted a 25 mrem / year all-pathways dose limit coupled with a requirement to reduce radiological doses resulting from residual radioactivity to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable. The Commission believes that'these criteria are consistent with the recommendations of national and international bodies tasked with the development of guidance for  !

radiation protection; are appropriately based on risk, cost-benefit, and socio-economic standards; provide the needed flexibility to accommodate site-specific conditions; and are sufficiently conservative to ensure

• Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. I Section 5841, provides that action of the Commission i shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members l present." Commissioner Dian was not present when this item was affirmed. Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 4-0 in favor of the decision.

Commissioner Diaz, however, had previously indicated that he would approve this paper, and had he been i present, he would have affirmed his prior vote. l l

l kh$Y ff

adequath prbtectn.n c: pub _.c  :<n.t. ana cuie-y m . -

environment.

• Separate Groundwater Protection Standard i The Commission did not adopt a separate groundwater l protection standard as proposed by the. Environmental Protection Agency 4 EPA) because the Ocmmission believes that a separate single pathway standard for groundwater l would not provide any significant enhancement of public  !

health and safety and is unnecessar3 since the NRC final rule's all-pathways standard of 25 mrem / year plus ALARA should ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. Imposition of separate groundwater standards could also have the adverse effect of delaying cleanup and increasing public rick Moreover, the Commission was not convinced that EPA's separate groundwater maximum contaminant levels were appropriately derived or coundly based from a technical standpoint.

• Alternate Criteria The Commission' adopted the NRC staff's recommendation to use alternate criteria for license termination for certain difficult sites since codifying such an approach in the text of the rule is expected to greatly reduce the likelihood that licensees will seek exemptions from the requirements of the regulation. Nevertheless, the Commission also approved a revision to section 20.1404 in the text of the final rule to require the NRC staff to obtain Commission approval for each application of the alternative criteria, to solicit comment from EPA during the public comment period required under section 20.1405 of the final rule, and to ensure a more substantive level of publ_c ,.rticipation. The Commission expects the use of such criteria to be relatively rare. (Specific, Commission-approved changes to section 20.1404 are c'bntained in the attachment to this SRM)

• Public Participation The Commission, in the absence of a provision that requires a Site Specific Advisory Board, which had been included in the proposed rule but not in the final rule, agreed to modify the final rule to require licensees proposing to decommission by restricting use of a site, or through the use of alternate criteria, to provide for participation by a broad cross section of community interests, an opportunity for a comprehensive discussion on the issues by participants, and to make public a summary of the results of such discussions. (Specific, Commission-approved changes to section 20.1403(d) of the final rule are contained in the attachment to this SRM)

• Agreement ' Stat Compatibiliti Le'/e i The Commission adopted Compatibility Level 2, as proposed by the NRC staff. This will afford the Agreement 4tates flexibility to account for local needs and conditions.

The staff is directed to incorporate the attached specific changes to the final rule and forward the Federal Reaister notice to the Office of the Secretary for signature and publication.

(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 6/03/97)

Attachment:

As stated cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers )

Commissioner Dicus l Commissioner Dia: '

Commissioner McGaffigan OGC OCA -

OPA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS,ACNW,ASLBP (via E-Mail) l l

PDR - Advance '

DCS-P1-17 a

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON FINAI. RULE ON RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR LICENSE TERMINATION (SECY 97-046A)

1. The rule is being completed on an expedited basis, and as a result, guidance documents are not avai]able for Commission review. Since the guidance documents can have a significant impact on how this rule is implemented, the staff should provide all guidance documents to the Commission for review and approval prior to publication no later than February 21, 1998.

2. The Statement of Considerations (p. 41) and the text of the rule (p. 122) are inconsistent in describing and defining the term " Critical Group" The staff should resolve the inconsistency and make appropriate changes to the. final rule package prior to publication.

3. The following changes to section 20.1403(d) (underlined) should be incorporated in the final rule:

(d) The licensee has ... advice.

(A) Licensees proposing to decommission by restricting use of the site shall seek advice frem such affected parties regarding the following matters concerning the proposed decommissioning--

. (1) ..

(i) .;

.; l (ii)

(iii) . , .

(2) .

fbi In seekinc advice onthe thelicensee issues identified in shall provide Section 20.1403(d)(A) i for:

(1 ) carticination by leeresen'tatives of a l broad crocs section of community ir.terests who mav be affected bv the decommissionino:

12) an occortunity for a comorehensive, collective discussion on the issues by the particicants reoresented: and (3) a oublicly available summarv of the results of all such discussions. includinc a descriction of the individual viewpoints of the carticicants on the issues and the extent of acreement and disaareement amono 1:he carticinants on the issues: and

1 l

l (e) ...

4. The following changes to section 20.1404 (underlined) should be incorporated in the final rule: .

20.1404 alternate criteria for license termination (a) The Commission may ...

(1) Provides assurance that ..

(2) Has employed . .

(3) Reduced doses to .. .

(b) Licensees croposina to decommission by use of alternate criteria to terminate a license oursuant to caraaraoh (a) of this section shall seek advice _

from affected carties reaardina this anproach. In seekina such advice, the licensee shall orovide for:

(1) particioation by reoresentatives of a broad cross section of community interests who may be affected by the decommissionino:

(2) an occortunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion on the issues by the particicants reoresented: and (3) a oublicly available summary of the results of all such discussions. including a descriotion of the individual viewpoints of the carticioants on the issues add the extent of aareement and disaareement amone_

the carticipants on the issues; and Isl The use of alternate criteria to terminate a license recuires the accroval of the Commission after consideration of the NRC staff's recummendations that will address any comments provided bv the Environmental Protection Acency and any public spmments submitted oursuant to section 20.1405.

5. The following change (underlined) to section 20 .1405 ( a) should be incorporated in the final rule:

(a) Notify and solicit comments from the Environmental Protection Acencv. local and state ....

6. Conforming changes to reflect the revisions in 3 and 4 above are needed in other regulations that reference these sections. The staff should also modify the Statement of Considerations accompanying the final rule to indicate that

i l

i

)

'the staff will receive and review public comments gathered by ,

the licensee prior to final NRC action on the licensee's request for license termination. The Statement of Considerations should also describe the other opportunities for NRC interaction with the public on individual site l decommissioning applications. l

7. The public announcement should be modified to include a general discussion of the Commission's position, as described i

)

in this SRM, on the 25 mrem /yr limit, groundwater protection, alternate criteria, public participation, and compatibility.

In addition, the announcement should include additional illustrations of an individual's average exposure to typical sources of radiation (e.g., medical diagnosis at 53 mrem /yr) to provide perspective for the public on the conservatism'in the 25 mrem /yr limit. .

8. A note should be made in the analysis of comments that EPA's MCLs are based upon outmoded modeling that does not reflect current understandings of the uptake and doses resulting from +

ingestion of radionuclides through drinking water.

9. The Regulatory Analysis, on pages 3 and 4, states that the criteria would not apply to sites which have submitted a sufficient license termination plan or decommissioning plan within [6 months after the effective date of the final rule) and such a plan is approved by NRC within (18 months after the effective date of the final rule]. These times are 12 and 24 months respectively in the Federal Register. Staff should clarify these times.

10. In the GEIS, p.3-3, citation of regulations, categorication of facilities, item 1, it is stated that sealed source users are licensed under Parts 30, 33, and 35, but did not include Parts 34, 36, or 39. In item 2, it cites Parts 30, 33, and 35 in discussion of short-lived byproduct radionuclides, but does not include Part 39 for I-131 use. The GEIS should list all the parts of the regulations, or state " licensed pursuant to Part 30",(such as in sections 30.31 and 30.34)

11. The Commission is aware that there are peculiarities in the models used for site release in that there is area dependence in the dose calculations. The NRC staff should develop comprehensive guidance on how previously released portions of licensed sites may need to be revisited to address this issue. The Federal Register notice should be ,

revised to make clear such consideration may be necessary.

j

12. The guidance the staff develops to implement the public participation provisions in sections 20.14 03 (d) and ,

20.1404 (b) of the final rule should include criteria for establishing and using Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs).

The criteria should be such that the expected starting point in providing an opportunity for public participation would be w

the establishment of an SSAB; however, the criteria should d.elineate those situations in which an SSAB would not be appropriate.

13. Prior to 'submitting the text of the final rule to the Federal Reaister, section F.6.3 of the Statement of Conciderations should.be revised to augment the basis for the Commission's decision with respect to radon

14. The scope of the final rule should be revised to exclude i facilities that are currently subject to Appendix A to 10 CFR i Part 40. The Commission has considered the-difficulties l associated with the decommissioning of these unique ,

facilities, some of which are also subject to EPA standards under UMTRCA, and is concerned that the complexities of this issue may have been overshadowed by o*.her provisions of the rule. Therefore, the Commission believes that this aspect of the rule warrants additional consideration by the NRC and the affected parties. Without prejudice to the approach described in SECY 97-046A and on an expedited basis, the staff should develop a rule which addresses license j termination for these facilities. In the interim, the staff should continue its current practice for decommissioning l uranium and thorium mills and in-situ leach facilities.

I l

l

\

u