ML20127L639

Informs Commission of Status of Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking to Establish Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning

ML20127L639
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/25/1993
From:	Cameron F NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
References
SECY-93-011, SECY-93-11, NUDOCS 9301270243
Download: ML20127L639 (96)

Text

,

m  : .s/nh> a-  ;

4 A  : w ines  :

1 POLICY ISSUE January 25, 1993 S M 011 (InfOrmallOn)

[E: The Commissioners  ;

From: Francis X. Cameron Special Counsel for Public Liaison and Waste Management Office of General Counsel Sub.iect: STATUS REPORT ON THE ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RULEMAKING ON THE RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING Puroose: To inform the Commission of the status of the enhanced i

participatory rulemaking to establish the radiological criteria for decommissioning lymmary: In its Staff Requirements Memorandum of October 28, 1992, the Commission approved the staff's recommendations in SECY-92-249 for conducting an enhanced participatory rulemaking to establish the radiological criteria for decommissioning. The basic approach outlined in SECY-92-249 was to conduct a series of workshops to solicit the advice and recommendations of affected interests on the fundamental approaches and issues that must be addressed to establish the site cleanup criteria.

This paper describes the progress that the staff has made towards implementing this approach, including the revision of relevant documents such as the Rulemaking Issues Paper; the preparation of background documents for workshop participants; the activities of the facilitation team from the Keystone Center; the NRC and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff preparation for the workshops; the development of the workshop agenda; the status of workshop participation; and the schedule for the rulemaking.

Discussion: In the Staff Requirements Memorandum that approved the enhanced participatory rulemaking, the Commission directed the staff to revise the Federal Reaister Notice which would announce the workshops and the Rulemaking Issues Paper which would provide the framework for workshop di:,cussions. The 1~9. g-(%

revised documents were mailed to all potential workshop participants and are provided for the Commission's information

' at Enclosure A (Federal Reaister Notice) and Enclosure B (Rulemaking issues Paper).

Contact:

F.X. Cameron, 0GC NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 504-1642 1N 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE I

'l

- ~ . - .

. """E OF THIS PAPER I OQg l m. 2 RES , 3

) 1 p bc ( C/

s The Commissioners The Federal Reaister flotice was published on December 11, 1992, and among other things, announced the availability of the Rulemaking issues Paper upon request to the Commission.

Approximately 100 copies have been requested, in addition to those sent to potential participants. The staff will also publish a Federal Reaister Notice containing information about individual workshops in advance of each workshop (Enclosure C).

In addition to the Rulemaking Issues Paper, the Commission directed the staff to prepare case studies of actual decommissioning projects and a summary of international activities in regard to site cleanup criteria. These documents were intended to serve as background material to prepare the participants for the workshop discussions. These documents are provided for the Commission's information at Enclosure D (case studies) and Enclosure E (international activities). They will be distributed to participants in advance of the workshops and public attendees at each Workshop.

As noted in SECY-92-249, the NRC has procured the services of The Keystone Center of Keystone, Colorado, to provide facilitation services and other support for the enhanced participatory rulemaking. The services of Keystone have been obtained through an interagency agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and its facilitation contractor, Resolve. Two facilitators from The Keystone Center will facilitate each of the workshops.

In preparation for the workshops the facilitators have met with each Commissioner and the senior management of the agency. They have also contacted invited participants to discuss the workshop process and the subuantive issues that the participants believe are important for discussion at the workshops. The facilitators also coordinated the development of a workshop agenda that would provide for an effective and productive discussion of the issues in the Rulemaking Issues Paper. The agenda is provided for the Commission's information at Enclosure F.

In preparation for the workshops, the NRC and EPA staf fs, with assistance from the facilitators, completed a two-day preparatory session on January 11 and 12, 1992. All relevant NRC offices were represented, as well as representatives from each NRC Regional Office and the EPA staff that will participate in the workshops. The EPA participants are from the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. They will also coordinate EPA participation in the enhanced rulemaking process with other relevant EPA offices, such as the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and the EPA Regions.

The Commissioners In addition to the general preparatory session, the key NRC and EPA headquarters and regional staffs will meet the day before each workshco at the workshop site to go over any final details. The NRC and EPA staffs have also been meeting on a regular basis to discess and develop a coordinated approach on the technical underp %nings in support of both the NRC rulemaking and the /A efforts to_ develop site cleanup criteria for Federal facilities. These technical underpinnings include radiological survey techniques, site characterization guidance, modelling guidance, and cost-benefit analysis. EPA and NRC al so are involving the Department of Energy in these activities as part of a coordinated Federal effort.

In addition to providing facilitation services for the workshops, the Keystone Center is also making all the logistical arrangements for the workshops. This includes arranging for specific workshop locations, securing hotel accommodations, ensuring that participants have the necessary matsrials and information for the workshops, arranging for audiovisual equipment and other supplies, and administering the travel funds for those individuals who meet the criteria for funding. The first workshop will be held in Chicago, Illinois, at the Park Hyatt Hotel, on January 27 and 28,1993.

Approximately 140 invitations to participate in the workshops were extended to individuals and organizations representing the broad spectrum of interests that might be affected by the rulemaking. This spectrum of interests includes state, local, and tribal governments; federal agencies; citizens and environmental groups; the nuclear industry; and professional societies. Based on information from the facilitators, we expect between twenty and twenty-five participants at each workshop. Although the participant lists for most of the workshops have not yet been finalized, the overall response from potential participants has been positive. We have included the participant list for the Chicago workshop at Enclosure G. The participant list for the San Francisco workshop will be provided to the Commission in advance of that workshop, scheduled for February 23 and 24,1993. Participant lists for the other workshops will be provided to the Commission with the next status report, which will be submitted in the beginning of March, 1993.

At the conclusion of each workshop, the facilitators will prepare and circulate a meeting summary to all participuts for review. Transcripts of all workshops will be placed in the NRC and EPA headquarters and regional Public Document Rooms and will also be made available upon request.

The NRC staff will issue a summary of workshop comments at the conclusion of the entire workshop process. This will also

o The Commissioners '

include any written comments that were submitted on the Rulemaking Issues Paper. The comment period ends on May 28, 1993.

The staff intends to issue a Notice of Intent to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) after the workshops have concluded. The Notice of Intent will begin the scoping process for the preparation of the GEIS, The scoping process will also include a public meeting to be held in Washington D.C. in June 1993.

The staff anticipates submitting the draft proposed rule and supporting documents, such as the draft GEIS, to the Commission in April 1994. The final rule would be published in the Federal Reaister in May 1995. Counting from the completion of the last workshop in May 1993, the time period to complete this rulemaking conforms to the Executive Director for Operation's guidelines for completing rulemakings within two years af ter initiation. The entire process for the enhanced participatory rulemaking, including the workshops, will extend beyond two years due to the enhancement of the process providad by the workshops. The complete schedule for the rulemaking is described in Enclosure ti.

The next status report will be submitted to the Commission following the second workshop, to be held in San Francisco, California on February 23 and 24,1993. In the interim, we will keep the Commission apprised of any significant developments that may arise from the workshops.

Coordination: This paper has been coordinated with the Executive Director for Operations.

\

rancis X. Cameron Special Counsel for Public Liaison and Waste Management Office of the General Counsel

Enclosures:

DISTRIBUTION:

A. [Ederal Reaister Notice, December 11, 1992 Commissioners B. Rulemaking Issues Paper OGC C. Federal Reaister Notice, January 14, 1993 oCAA D. Decommissioning case studies OIG E. international experience OPA F. Workshop Agenda OPP Participants for the Chicago, Illinois workshop G. REG. OFFICES H. Rulemaking Schedule EDO ACNW ASLBP SECY

N o Enclosure A 58727 Proposed Rules r *d-e Vol. 57, No 239 yriday, [Wmter 11, 1992 The sectan of the FEDERAL REGISTER ACDON: Notice of workshops. Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:

contains notices to tie putAc of te proposed 301-504-1642.

tanvance of rules and re;ro.ations. The $UMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory ,gguaygo ,7 ,

purpcse of rwse notices is to g+e interested Commisslun (NRC)is preparing io perscna an orportursty e panicipate in the initiate an enhanced participatory llackground ruie maung pnor e te enton of te hnal rulemaking on establishing the The NRC bee the statutory ruus. radiological criteria for the decommissioning of NRC.llcensed resfonsibilit an ufety r stedfor protection to the of health use of source.

facilitics. The Commission indends t byproduct, and special nuclear material NUCLEAR REGULATORY enhance the participation of affected COMMISSION under the Atomic Energy Act.The NRC interests in the rulemaking by soliciting believes that one portion of this 10 CFR Chapter 1 commentary from these interests on the reponsibility is to ensure the safe and rulemaking issues before the staff timely decommluloning of nuclear NRC Program for Ellmination of develops the draft proposed rule. The facilities which it licenses and to Requiremente Marginal to Safety; Cornmission plans to conduct a series of provide guidance to licensees on how to Pubile Workshop worksho a to solicit commentary frorn plan for and prepare their sites for affected ntemsts on the Nndamental decommissioning. Once licensed AGENCV: Nuclear R"8ulato'Y a roaches and issues that must be activities have ceased, licensees are g;

Action: Not e of Rescheduling of edi l italCnte a lo W ' '" " ' " '

so that their hcensa may be tennineted.

Public Worksl20P- decommissioning. The workshops will This requires that the radioactivity in svuuARY: On November 24,1992, a be held in various locations throughout land, groundwater, buildings, and the United States beginning in January, equipment resulting from the licensed notice was published (57 FR 55156) announcing a public workshop on 1993 and will be open to the public, operation be reduced to levels that January 26-27,1993 for the NRC DATES:The schedule for the workshops allow the property to be released for Program for Elimination of is as follows: unrestricted use. Licensees must then Requirements Marginal to Safety. This January 27 and 28,1993-Chicago,It demonstrate that all facilitias have been workshop is being rescheduled to February 23 and 24,1993-San properly decontaminated and that expand the scope and include other Francisco, CA radioactive material has been espects of the staff plans to improve the March 12 and 13,199hBoston, MA transferred to authorir.ed recipients.

efficiency of the regulatory process. A March 23 and 24,1993-Dallas, TX Confirrnatory surveys are conducted by notice providing further details will be April 13 and 14,1993-Philadelphia, NRC, where appropriate, to verify that published in the near future. PA sites meet NRC radiological criteria for DATES: The resc'ieduled dates of the April 29 and 30,199%Atlante, CA decommissioning.

public workshop will be published in May 6 and 7,1993-Washington, DC The types of nuclear fuel cycle (NaHonal Workshop) facilities that will require the near future. As discussed later in this notice, the ADontssts: The location of the public decomrriuloning include nuclear wmkshop discussions will focus on the power plants: non power (research and workshop will be published in the near issues and approaches identified in a g test) reactors; fuel fabrication plants, FDA AD C ACT: " "' '"

the C s aff. e m s wI sl"and de]>e d t pent uel g ""{,1N 9 a b59'P 75$'!h5 "participants. Written comments should hP n NRC licensees, while the remainder are Dated at Rockville, Maryland. this 4th day be submitted by May 28,1993. licensed by Agreement States acting of Decemlet 1992. ADDRESSES: Send written comments on under the authority of the Atomic For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. the Rulemaking Issues Paper to: Energy Act, section 274. These licenseue Warna Minners. Socretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory include universities, medical Director. Division o/Safery tssue Resolution, Commission, Washington, DC 20555- institutions radioactive source Offece o/ Nuclear Regulatory Research. Attn: Docketing and Service Branch. manufacturers, and companies that use (FR Doc. 92-3012r Filed 12-10-92; 8 45 aml lland deliver comments to 11555 radioisotopes for industrial purposes.

au s.o ecos rse w -a Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland About 50% of NRC's 7,500 materials

__ between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on licensees use either sealed radioactive Federal workdays. The Rulemaking sourtes or small amounts of short. lived 10 CFR Cart 20 1ssues Paper is available from Francis X. radioactive materials. Decommissioning Cameron (See FOR FURNER INFOMATM of these facil10es should be relatively Radiological Criteria for o ACT). simple because !bere is usually little or Decommissioning of NRC-Licensed FOR FURTHER INFOR&4ATM CONTACT: no residual radioactive contamination.

Facilities; Workshops Francis X. Cameron Special Counsel for Of the remaining 50%, a small number ,

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Public Liaison and Waste Management, (e g. radioactive source manufacturers, l Commission. Office of the General Counsel, radiopharmaceutical producers, and  ;

l

58728 redercl Register / Vol 57, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 1902 / Proposed Rules radioedive ore processors) conduct decommissioning of nuclear facilities on ne normal proccu for conducting operations that could produce a site 4pecific basis as the need arises Commission rulemakings is NRC staff .

substantial radioactive contamination in considering esisting criteria Case and deveilopment of a draft propowd rule for portions of the facility.nese facihties, activity spncific risk decisions will Commission review and approval.

like the fuel cycle fauhties identified continue to te made as neceuary during pubhcation of the proposed rule for above, must be decontaminated tefore the pendency of this process, public comment, consideration of the they can te safely released for comments by the NRC staff, and unrestricted use.

""' I* P ' '"7 preparation of a draft final rule for beveral hundred NRC and Agnement I"I'**kI"3 Commission approval. In the enhanced State licenses are terminated enth year. The Commlulon telieves it is participatory rulemaking, not only will

he majority of these beensos involve desirable to provide for early and comments le solicited before the NRC limited operations, produce httle or no comprehensive input from offocted staff prepares a draft proposed rule.but radioactive contamination, and do not interests on important public health and the mechanism for soliciting the6e early present comNei decommissicning safety issues, such as the development comments will also provide an problems or potential risks to pubhc of radiohigicalcriteria for opportunity for the effected intervsts lahh or the environment from residual decommissioning Accordingly,the and the NRC staff to discuss the luues contamination. Ilow ever, as the nuclear Comminion is initiating an enhanced with each other, rather than relying on industry matures,it is expected that participatory rulemaking to wtablish the traditional one to one written snore and more of the larger nuclnt these uitena The ob tnctive of the wrrespondence with the NEC st6ff.

ficilities that have boon oMrating for a rulemnLing is to enhance the After Commlulon resiew and approval number of yean will reath the end of participation of effectm' interests in the of the ~ draft proposed rule that is the;r useful lives and be rulemaking by soliciting commentary developed using the workshop dw ommluloned. Herefore, both the from these interests on the rulemaking commentary, the general pnuu of number and complexity of facilities that issues lefore the NRC staff develops the issuing the proposed rule for pubhc will mquitv decommissioning is draft proposed rule.The NRC staff will comment, NRC ataff evaluation of enpeded to increase consider this commentary in the comments, and preparation of a draft W Commiss!cn believes that there is development of the draft proposml rule, final rule for Commission approval, will a need to incorporate into its regulstions as well as document how these occur.

radiological cnteria for termination of comments were considered in arriving P8'1ECI P '"I' hcenses and release of land and at a regulatory approach. The structures for unrestricted use. ne Comminion tcheves that this will be en in order to have a manageable intent of this action would to to provide effective method for illuminating the discussion among the workshop a clear and consistent reguletorY tiosis decisionmaking pr(Oss on complex and participOnts. the number of participants for determining the astent to dich controversial public health and safety in each workshop must be hmited.

lands and strudures must be istuos nls approcch will ensure that Dawd on discussions with esperts on dw onteminated before a site can be the important luues have been workshop facihtation, the NRC staff derommissint%l. The Commission identified, wil1 assht in identifying believen that the optimum size of the belha thet inclusion of critens in the potential information gaps or workshop Eroup is fifteen to Iwenty nwulations w ould result in more implemet.tation problems; and will participants. Due to differing levels of efficient and consistent licensit g facilitate the development of potential interest in each region, the actual n< tient related to the numerous and solutions to address the concerns that number of participants in any one imquently (nnT !cx si'e effected interests may have in regard to w orishop, as well as the number of dmontamination and decommiuloning the rulernallog. participants that represent a particular artiuties antitiratmlin the future A no early invohement of affxted interest in any one workshop. may vary rulemaking effort would aho provide an interests in the development of the draft invitations to attend the workshops will opportunity to reau. is the basis for the propor.ed rule will be accomplished be extended by the NRC staff using naidual wntamination levels contained through a series of workshops. A several selection criteria. First, to ensure in esisting guidance in light of changes workshop format was selected bncause that the Commir.sion has the tenefit of in besic rediation protection standards it will provide representatives of the the spectmm of viewpoints on the and dwummissioning ca perienc e effected interees with an opportunity to issues, the NRC staff is attempting to ob'alned durin,t the pa415 years. dawss the rulemaking luues with one achieve the participation of the full The new ontana would apply to the another and to question one another range of interests that may be affected docommissiomng of power reettors, about their respective positions and by the rulemaking The NRC staff has non power reactors. fuel reproccuing contvens. Although the workshops are identified several general interests that plants, fuel fabrication plants, uranium intended to foster a clearer will be used to select specific workshop hexafluoride production plants, understanding of the pmitions and participante-state governments, local independent spent fuel storage concerm of the effected interests, as governments, tribal govemments, installations, and materials hcensas. well as to identify arvas of egreement Federal agencies, citirens groups.

The (sitona would apply to nuclear and disagreement,it is not the intent of nuclear utilities, fuel cycle facilities, facihties that operate through their the workshop prtoss to attempt to and non fuel cycle facilities. In addition nonnel lifetime, as well as to thme that develop a consensus agreament on the to these interests, the ataff also plans to may be shut down prematurely. The rulemaking issues. In addition to the invite representatises from the propmed anteria would not apply to commentary from the workshop contracting industry that performs uraniurn (other than source materiell participants, the workshops will be docommissioning work and minoa and mill talbngs, high level waste open to the public and the public will representatives from professional repositones or low level waste disposal be provided with the opportunity to societies, such as the llealth Physica facihties. comment on the rulemaking issues and Society and the American Nuclear Until the new alteria are in place, the the workshop discussions at discrete Society ne NRC anticipates that most Comminion intends to proccod with the intervals during the workshopa. of the participants will be

y 4

Federal Resister / Vol. 57, No. 239 / Friday, Decernber 11, 1992 / Proposed Rutas 58729 representauva of organtutions, e Local govemmenta. no NRC staff staff has contacted several of the liowever,it is also possible that there has contacted the Nauonal Associauon companies that perform may be e few participants who, because of Counties and the county associatione decommisstoning work in regard to of their experties and influencs, will in each state to ider.tify potentiallocal workshop participadon, participate without any organlutional govemment participants. . Federal agencies.The NRC staff has offiliation, e Tnbal governments The NRC staff contacted several Federal agencies about The second plection criterion is the has contacted three national tribal organtutione-.-Native Arnericans for e [articipadon in the workshops.

ability of the participant to nvironmentalProtection Agency The knowledgeably discuss the full range of Clean Environment, the National (EPA)hu d hs Wu and rulemaking issues. ne NRC staff wishes Congress of American Indians, and the responsibilities, will not only to ensure that the workshops will elicit Council of Energy Resource Trites-in articipate in the workshops, but also infonned discussions of options and regard to the participation of tribal es been consulted by the NRC staff on approaches, and the rationale for those o ork hops. [g gg opuons and approaches,isther than Gove}ments eC ens groups in the te a sim le ta e ents of opinion eNRC contact e er Ps

, 3 ,} {n nga b thUrganeraf the evaluation of the workshop nadonal comm to h ee arti ipants has tNn b i on an I"y[5t

, hin p icipaung in evaluation of such factors as the extent include the Sierra ub, the Natural enhanced participatory r' lemakjng and of a potential participant e experience Resources Defenn Council, the Nuclear has altsady provided the NRC staff with wiu a broad range of radiation assistance on this Pfort. EPA will to rotection issues and types of nuclear Information Resource Servica. Public Citizen, U S. Public Interest Research fully involved in the workshops and in acilities, specific experience with the the Les decommissioning issue, and the extent Grou Nation 'al Aubukus on Societof Women Voters, the providing the rulemaking issues.comments It is anticipated to the NRC staff on of a potenual participant a substantive Concemed Scientists,Phyticians an[, the Unionthat of the EPA will also leer use the comment and participation on prestous workshop commentary in the Commission regulatory or licensing forinSocialResbonsibillt regard to ocal and regional , citizens development of its regulatory approach  !

' ' *

• I groups, the NRC staff has had extensive for decommissioning The Commission The third criterion om hasites discussions with the NRC regional believes that this consdtstive approath participation from organ utions within personnel, state radiation protection to the region encompanwd by the control officials, and others, on with utilf reEPA Federalwill be anine!!icient resources deve wefoping workshop. As much as practicable, potendal citizen group participation at an effective and consistent federal those organfutions that primarily the regionallevel. Based on these approach to decommissioning operate within the region, as oppond to discussions, the NRC staff has contacted standards, 11ha e a yir ter o *p ""*t*'"I'III**"8 {r tups about their The NRC staff has also had several tentialinterest in e enhanced discussions with the Department of participating in the corresponding t4gional workshops. Organizations with E"#Nucla P' Energy (DOE) about the enhanced e t$s hk Nuclear Participatory rulernaking process and a national standing will be part of the htananment and Resources Council

" national" workshop to be held in p tenual DOE participation in the Washington' DC (NUMARC) will coordinate the workshops. DOE has indicated a U" " ' preliminary interest in participating in Wherever possible, the NRC staff (*o 's'ho sP""

plans to arrange the participauon of . Fuel cycle facilities.The United the national workshop. Although the individual organlutions in the Comtnission a decommissioning States Council on Energy Awareness workshops through national (USCEA) and the Fuel Cycle Facilities standards will generally not be directly organiutions such as the Organization Forum will coordinate the participation applicable to DOE facihtles. DOE p ssesses substantial ex;wrtise in the of Agreement States, and the Conference of fuel cycle companies in the of Radiation Control Program Directors workshops.

decommissioning area that will be a (CRCPD). There will also te some , Non fuel cycle facilities, The NRC useful source of informauon in the flesibility to later include organizations staff has contacted a numler of national workshop. It shw!d be noted who were not originally idenulied in organiuuons in this category about that under the Formerly Utilized Site the staff survey of potential participants. potential participation in the - Remedial Action Prograin (FUSRAP),

in order to provide the pubhc with and in some other circume'ances, DOE workshops, including regional information on the types of radioisotope uprs groups. The USCEA may take title to a licenw s or former organlutions that may eventually Committee on Radionuclides and licensee s site for cleanup and long term participate in the workshops, the Radiopharmaceuticals assisted in care, including monitoring ne NRC Commission has provided the following coordinating the parucipation of the staff has also discussed the new summary: members of these and other non fuel rulemaking initiative with several other-e State governments.The Federal agencies and interagency cycle entiues in the workshops.

Organitauon of Agreement States and Participants will be draws from coordinaung committees. The NRC staff the CRCPD are willing to coordinate the radiopharmaceutical manufacturers, antici atos that Federal agency participauon of indwidual states in the biomedical research radionuclide paruc pation will occur in the national regional workshops. The NRC staff has manufacturers, the medical profession, workshop, also notified the National Governor's sealed source manufacturers, and the e Professional societies.The NRC Association, the Western Governors university research community. staff has contacted the Health Physics Association, the Nationa! Conference of e Decommissioning contractors. In Society, the American Nuclear Society.

State legislatures, and the National order to ensure that information on and other professional socieues in Associauon of Attorneys General of the decommissioning costs and methods are regard to their potential interest in upcoming workshops. prewnted in the workshops, the NRC participating in the national workshop.

58730 Federal Regist:r / Vol. 57, No. 239 / Friday, Demb:r it,1992 / Proposed Rul:s Workshop tocation, Schedule, and quesuon each other about their These secondary inues include the time respective viewpoints, and assist in frame for dose calculadon, the ,

Format .

" i discussion moving at a pace individuals or groups to be protected.

The Commission intends to conduct keepinki that wi allow all major issue areas the to use of separate uiteria for specific the workshops on a wgional basis. exposure pathways such as 1

be addressed.

Although, there will to one national groundwater, the treatment of redon, workshop in Washington, DC. for Rulema. ing luues Paper n and the treatment of previously buried organtutions with a nadonal focus, the The NRC staff has prepared a materials.

rest of the workshops will14 held at Rulemaking issues Paper to be used as The Rulemaking lasues Paper will be various locadons throughout the United a focal point for the workshop provided to each potential workshop States The national woikshop is not discussions, nis paper, which will be participant. Additional copies will be intended to be a summary of the other distributed to pardelpants in advance of available to members of the public in workshops, and the NRC staff does not the workshop, sets forth in neutral terms attendanca at the workshop. Copies will intend to give any greater weight to the issues that must to addressed in the also be available from the NRC staff commenu made during that workshop rulemaking, as well as background contact identified above. In addition to than to any other workshop.n' informauon on the nature and extent of the comments on the Rulemaung issues regional framework will allow the the nroblem to be addressed. In framing Paper pr vided to the workshops. the Commission to hear from as many the Issues and approaches discussed in Commission is also receptive to the knowledgeable organtutions at the local the Rulemaking lasues Paper, the NRC submittal of written comments on the level as possible.These local staff has attempted to anucipate the rulemaking lesues, as noted under the organludons will bring a ur.!que variety of views that exist on these heading "oAfts",

perspecuve to the discussion of the approaches and inues.%e paper will Deted at Rockvme, MD,this 2nd day of rulemaling issues, and the regional provide assistance to the participants as Deumkr.1H2.

workshops will also give the NRC an they prepare for the workshops, suggest For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

opportunity to interact with the workshop agenda, and establish the organludons with which it has not level of technical discussion that can be Samu*l l. mik.

previously had the opportunity to do so. expected at the workshops.The Secterary of the Commission.

The existing NRC, regional framework workshop discuscions are intended to (FR Doc. 92-29rlo Filed 12-1D-92; 8 45 aml was und to select the workshop be used by the staff in developing the aus.o coot nee u locations, with slight adjustments made draft proposed rule. Prior to the _.

to accommodate areas with a belghtened workshops, no staff positions will be interest in decommissioning activities, taken on the rulemaking approaches and 10 CFR Part 54 as well as to maximite participation in issues identified in the Rulemaking the workshops. Notification of the issues Paper. As noted earlier, to the Standard Dealgn Cedmcation a pecific moeung locations in each of the extent the Rulemaking issues Paper fails Rulemaking Proc 4dures; Notloe of cities that have been selected as a to identify a pertinent issue, this may be AveliablHty workshop site will be announced corrected at the workshop sessions * . AGEpect: Nuc' ear R*E"lato'I through publication in the Federal The discussion of issues is divided Commluton.

Register and letters to individual into two parts. Firet are two primary Action: Notice of availability.

participants. Issues dealing with: (1) The objectives ,

To assure that each workshop for developing radiological criteria; and $UuuARf:The Nuclear Regulatory addresses the issues in a consistent' (2) application of practicality Commission (NRC) la making available manner, the workshops will have a considerations. The objectives to the public a paper, SECY 92-381 common pre-defined scope and egenda constitute the fundamental approach to (November 10,1992), repared by the focused on the Rulemaking Issues Paper the establishment of the radiological Office of the General unsel (OGC) discussed below. However, the criteria, and the NRC staff has identified workshop format will be sufficiently four distinct possibillues including: (1) which[rovides g, mmission on final design recommendauoni fictible to allow for the introduction of Risk Limits, which is the establishment certification rulemaking procedures for any additionalinues that the of limiting values about which the risks the initial design cartificauon participants may want to raise. At each to the public are deemed unacceptable, '"j ' * "gy" E '

workshop, the NRC staff will begin each but allows for citeria to be set below discuulon period with a brief overview the limit using practicality ADoREssts: Requests for copies of SECY 92-381 abould be sent to Geary S.

of the rulemaking 1: sues to be discussed considerations; (2) Risk Goals, where a Mizuno, Office of the General Counpl.

and the remainder of the workshop will goalis selected and practicality U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, be devoted to a discussion of the issues considerations are used to establish criteria as close to the goal as practical; Washington, DC 20555. Copies of SECY by the participants no workshop commentary will be transcribed and (3) Best Effort, where the technology for 92-381 may be examined, along with made available to participants and to decontamination considered to be the comments received on the draft OGC the public. best available is applied; and (4) Return paper (SECY-92-170), and the Personnel from The Keystone Center, to Preexisting Background, where the transcipt of a July 20,1992 workshop a nonprofit organization located in decontamination would continue until on design certification procedures, at Keystone, Colorado, will serve as the radiological conditions were the the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW, (Lower 14vell, neutral facilitators for each workshop. aame as existed prior to the licensed The facilitators will chair the workshop activities. Washington, DC between the hours of sessions and ensure the participants are Following the primary issues ar, 7:45 a.m. and 5.15 p.m. on Federal given an opportunity to express their several secondary lasues that are related work days.

viewpoints, assist participants in to the discussions of the primary luues, FOR FURTHFJL INFORMATION CONTACT:

articulating their interests, ensure that but which the NRC staff believe warrant Geary S. Mizuno. Office of the General participants are given the opportunity to separate presentations and discussions. Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Enclosure B PROPOSED RULEMAKING TO ESTABLISH RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AT WORKSHOPS i

I l

l

I lyMMARY The Commission proposes to revise 10 CFR Part 20 to include radiological criteria for termination of licenses and release of land and structures for unrestricted use. It is the Commission's intent that the criteria developed in this rulemaking would apply to almost all licensed facilities and sites.' _

However, it would not apply to sites already covered by a Commission approved decommissioning plan. An estimate of the numbers and types of facilities k expected to be covered by this rulemaking is provided in the BACKGROUND section of this paper. A discussion of how the Commission proposes to implement the criteria can be found in the section entitled PROPOSED COMMISSION ACTIONS. There may be a small number of sites where cleanup to criteria for unrestricted release devtloped in this rulemaking may not be practical. The approach to handling such cases is an issue for discussion.

The purpose of this issues paper is to describe the background and issues that would be associated with a rulemaking to establish radiological criteria for decommissioning, and to focus discussions in a series of public workshops on rulemaking issues. The format for each issue is arranged by first describing the general issue to be considered, then providing a background discussion of the issue with potentially useful information for the workshop discussions. A list of sub-issues is also provided.

The description of issues is divided into two parts. First are two primary issues dealing with: 1) the objectives for developing radiological criteria; and 2) the application of practicality considerations. The objectives constitute the fundamental approach to the establishment of the radiological criteria, and the NRC staff has identified four distinct alternatives including: 1) Risk Limits, where a limiting value is selected and criteria are 5

The criteria would not apply to the disposition of uranium mill tailings, low-level waste disoosal facilities, or hiah level waste repositories since these have already been addressed in separate regulatory actions. They would apply, however, to uranium mills and ancillary facilities that support radioactive waste disposal (e.g., surface facilities for the high level waste repository).

2 l

4

' established below the limit using practicality considerations; 2) Risk Goals, l 1

where a goal is selected and practicality considerations are used to establish

! criteria as close to the goal as possible, 3) Best Effort, where the technology for decontamination considered to be the best available is applied;

and 4) Return to Preexisting Background, where the decontamination would 2

continue until the radiological conditions were the same as existed prior to the licensed activities.

Foll ning the primary issues are several secondary issues that are related to

the primary discussions, but which were believed to warrant separate

presentations and discussions. These include additional considerations such

) as the time frame for dose calculation, the individuals or groups to be i

protected, the use of separate criteria for specific exposure pathways such as groundwater, the treatment of radon, and the treatment of previously buried i materials.

l BACKGROUND-The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the statutory responsibility for protection of health and safety related to the use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material under the Atomic Energy Act. The NRC believes that one portion of this responsibility is to assure safe and timely l decommissioning of nuclear facilities which it licenses, and to provide i guidance to licensees on how to plan for and prepare their sites for decommissioning. Decommissioning, as defined by the NRC, means to remove nuclear facilities safely from service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license.'

Once licensed activities have ceased, licensees are required to decommission their facilities so that their licenses can be terminated. This requires that radioactivity in land, groundwater, surface water, buildings, and equipment

• A glossary of other terms generally used by the NRC can be found in Appendix A.

3

4 resulting from the licensed operation be reduced to levels that allow the .

property to be released for unrestricted use. Licensees must then demonstrate that all facilities have been properly decontaminated and that, except for any l residual radiological contamination fouiJ to be acceptable to remain at the site, radioactive material has been transferred to authorized recipients.

Confirmatory surveys are conducted by NRC, where appropriate, to verify that sites meet NRC radiological criteria for decommissioning.

There are currently about 24,000 licensees in the United States. About one third of these are NRC licensees, while the remainder are licensed by Agreement States through an agreement entered into under the Atomic Energy  !

Act, Section 274. These licensees include universities, medical institutions, radioactive source manufacturers, and companies that use radioisotoprs for industrial purposes. About 50% of NRC's 7,500 materials licensees use either sealed radioactive sources or small amounts of short-lived radioactive materials. Decommissioning of these facilities should be relatively simple since there is usually little or no residual radioactive contamination to be cleaned up and disposed of. Of the remaining 50%, a small number (e.g.

radioactive source manufacturers, radiopharmaceutical producers, and radioactive ore processors) conduct operations which could produce substantial radioactive contamination in portions of the facility. The population of nuclear fuel cycle facilities which will require decommissioning includes 112 nuclear power plants (at 75 sites); 74 non-power (research and test) reactors; 14 fuel fabrication plants, 2 uranium hexafluoride production plants, 49 uranium mill facilities, and 9 independent spent fuel storage installations.

These facilities will have to be decontaminated to acceptable levels before they can be safely released for unrestricted use.

The facilities listed in the NRC's Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP), discussed later in this issues paper, provide an illustration of how a facility or equipment might become contaminated through the use of radioactive material in forms which are not encapsulated to prevent the spread or dispersal of material. Sealed sources, including items such as check sources, do not pose a contamination problem unless the encapsulation is broken. When radioactive material in unsealed forms is used, such as in the nuclear fuel l 4

- ,wwwe -- - y--- e- ->c- -- M --

g y- - -a w-

s .

l.

b I

fabrication industry, in production of radiopharmaceutical medicines, or in

]* research the equipment used to process and handle the material becomes 4

contaminated by the small quantities of material that adhere to surfaces of

valves, piping, etc. If material is spilled, then the area of the spill l becomes contaminated.

4 Essentially everything which comes in contact with the radioactive material i must be considered as contaminated and checked for the presence of residual 4

i radioactive material. Thus areas surrounding facilities could become contaminated by the movement of materials, equipment, and people into and out of the areas containing the radioactive material'. NRC requires that

]

contamination control procedures be used to minimize or prevent the movement l

1 of radioactive materials into other areas. Nevertheless, some areas may 4

become contaminated over the course of time due to breakdowns in the control

procedures. Contamination may also be spread by the movement of water or t

other fluids containing the radioactive materials through or along piping, 1

equipment, walls, floors, sumps, drains, etc. In some cases, this has resulted in significant quantities of radioactive material in the ground under or around butidings and facilities.

In addition to contamination, so.ne licensed operations can produce radioactive materials through the process of activation. - Examples of such operations are nuclear reactors. These activated materials can also lead to the need to decontaminate or dispose of the radioactivity during decommissioning.

Several hundred NRC and Agreement State licenses are terminated each year.

The majority of these licenses involve limited operations, produce little er no radioactive contamination, and do not present complex decommissioning problems or potential risks to public health or the environment from residual contamination. However, as the nuclear industry matures, it is expected that more and more of the larger nuclear facilities which have been operating for a

- number of years will- reach the end of their useful lives and have to be decommissioned. Thus both the number and comple: t" of facilities that will require decommissioning is expected to increase.

5 l

+ - , - , , - ...c,,,-, , , , , . , ~ ~ - - - - , ~ , . ~ - - , =---,w-

The NRC has a program underway to effect timely decommissioning of about 40 -

problem sites which either have not been decommissioned properly or have been engaged in the decommissioning process for an extended time. The Commission has e:tablished a Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) for effecting timely decommissioning of these problem facilities. Sites being handled under the SDMP vary in degree of radiologic hazard, cleanup complexity, and cost.

Some sites comprise tens of acres that require assessment for radiological contamination, whereas other sites have contamination known to be limited to individual buildings or discrete piles of tailings or contaminated soil.

Many sites involve active licenses, but some sites involve formerly licensed sites, or sites where the responsible party is unable or unwilling to perform cleanup. These sites also vary in degree of completion of decommissioning.

At some sites, little or no decontamination work has been done, whereas at 1 other sites, decommissioning plans have been submitted or license termination is in the offing.

The effort to have these SDMP sites cleaned up and decommissioned has been hampered in part because licensees view the absence of definitive decontamination criteria as an incentive to defer decommissioning pending issuance of formal NRC requirements. The General Accounting Office (GAO),

which has been critical of the Commission's inability to effect timely decommissioning of these sites, has recommended that NRC enhance its decommissioning efforts by reconsidering its radiological criteria for decommissioning'.

Until new criteria are in place, the Commission intends to proceed with decommissioning nuclear facilities on a site-specific basis as the need arises considering existing criteria coupled with the concept that residual radioactivity be as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Case and activity-specific decisions concerning decommissioning of sites will continue to be made as necessary during the pendency of this process. Since the SDMP sites could pose unnecessary environmental and public risk or financial burden GA0 Report to Congress, "NRC's Decommissioning Procedures and Criteria Need to Be Strengthened" GA0/RCED-89-119, May 1989 6

1

if they are not cleaned up and decommissioned in a: timely manner, the-Commission's effort to effect timely decommissioning of these sites is proceeding in parallel with this proposed rulemaking action. The NRC published an Action Plan to ensure timely remediation of. sites listed in the SDMP in the Federal Reaistte.' It should be noted that as a matter of current policy the NRC does not plan to require additional cleanup of sites in response to criteria established in this rulemaking, provided that_the licensee or responsible party cleaned up the site, or was in the process or cleaning up the site in full accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning plan at the time of promulgation.

Internationally, most efforts have been focussed upon derivation.of criteria for waste and recycle, using guidance published by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Decommissioning criteria have generally been established on a case specific basis, and the NRC staff is not aware of other international efforts similar to this rulemaking to define radiological criteria for decommissioning.

NEED FOR RULEMAKING The Commission believes that there is a need to incorporate into its regulations radiological criteria for termination of licenses and release of land and structures for unrestricted use. The intent of such an action would be to provide a clear and consistent regulatory basis for determining the extent to which lands and structures must be decontaminated before a site can be decommissioned. The Commission believes that inclusion of criteria in the regulations would result in more efficient and consistent licensing actions related to the numerous and frequently complex site decontamination and decommissioning activit'es anticipated in the future. In addition, a rulemaking effort would also provide an opportunity to reassess the basis for the residual contamination levels contained in existing guidance in light of

'57 FR 13389, April 16, 1992.

7

changes in basic radiation protection standards' and decommissioning .

experience obtained during the past 15 years.

Current regulations do not explicitly address radiological criteria for decommissioning.' Pending NRC rulemaking on generic radiological criteria for decommissioning, the NRC continues to use its current criteria and practices.' The NRC could continue to decommission on a site-specific basis using existing guidance. However, the Commission believes that codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in the regulations would: (1) result in more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources; (2) lead to more consistent and uniform application across all types of licenses; (3) provide a more stable basis for decommissioning planning; and (4) eliminate protracted delays in decommissioning which results as licensees wait for generic regulatory criteria before proceeding with decommissioning of their facilities.

The criteria would apply to the decommissioning of all types of NRC licensed facilities, including materials licensees, power reactors, non-power reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, fuel fabrication plants, uranium hexafluoride

• As codified in the May 21, 1991 revision of 10 CFR Part 20 [56 FR 23360]

• In June 1988 the Comission published a final rule on General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (53 FR 24018, 27 June 1988). However, this rule did not specifically address radiological criteria for decommissioned sites.

Regulatory guidance, criteria, and practices include the following wii.. emphasis on contamination levels that are ALARA: " Disposal or On-site Storage of Thorium or Uranium from Past Operations" Branch Technical Position, October 23,1981, 46 FR 52061; " Termination of Byproduct, Source, and Special Nuclear Materials Licenses", Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23, November 4,1983; Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors" Regulatory Guide 1.86, June 1974 ; letter to Stanford University from James R. Miller, Chief, Standardization and Special Projects Branch, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Docket No. 50-141, April 21,1982; "Natioral Primary Drinking Water Standards," 40 CFR 141; " Radiation Dose Guidelines for Protection Against Transuranium Elements Present in the Environment as a Result of Unplanned Contamination," 42 FR 60956, November 30, 1977. Guidance is specified in terms af acceptable levels of residual contamination at decommissioned sites.

8

-production plants, and independent spent fuel storage installations.' They .

would. apply to nuclear facilities that operate through their normal lifetime, l

as well as to those-that may be shut down prematurely. There may be a small

' number of sites where cleanup to criteria for unrestricted release developed j_

in this rulemaking may not be practical. The-approach to handling such cases

is an issue for discussion.

i i On July 3,1990, the Commission published _a Below Regulatory Concern (BRC)

Policy Statement in the Federal-Reaister. The BRC Policy was intended to guide a broad range of _ Commission actions, including exemptions from

' Commission regulations, as well as the development of generic health and safety standards such as those involved in this rulemaking. Subsequent to

the publication of the BRC Policy, the Commission' placed an indefinite

! moratorium on the implementation of the BRC Policy because of the broad public concern expressed over the new Policy.' After the Commission placed the I indefinite moratorium on the implementation of the BRC Policy, it decided to initiate this rulemaking to address the critical need for generic site cleanup and decommissioning standards for NRC-licensed facilities. The Commission determined that it should proceed with a fresh approach to .the development of l these standards that is independent of the now defunct BRC Policy.

4 i

l

• The criteria would not apply to the disposition of uranium mill j

tailings, low-level waste disposal facilities, or_ high-level waste repositories since these have already been addressed in separate regulatory actions. They would apply, however,-to uranium mills and ancillary facilities that support radioactive waste disposal (e.g., surface facilities for the high j level waste repository).

l

' Section 2901 of the recently enacted National Energy Policy Act of l~

1992 (H.R. 776) revoked the Commission's July, 1990, BRC Policy Statement.

Section 2901 also revoked the Commission's policy statement of August 29, 1986 L that established criteria to guide Commission exemption decisions on specific low-level radioactive waste streams. This latter policy was developed in order to comply with Section 10 of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The Commission will be issuing a formal withdrawal of l

these two policy statements in the Federal Recister in January,1993, i

9

~ ~ , . _ _ . - .._. _ _ - .. _ _ _ .. _ .,

Concurrent with the NRC rulemaking on site cleanup standards, the ,

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proceeding to develop standards and guidance for Federal agencies in the area of radiation protection, including standards for the cleanup of contaminated sites. Tbc NRC and EPA plan to coordinate their efforts in this area in order to ensure that effective and consistent site cleanup standards are established, while minimizing duplication of effort. Accordingly, the EPA will not only be an important participant in the NRC rulemaking workshops but the NRC also plans to consult extensively with EPA throughout the rulemaking process. It is anticipated that the information gathered during the workshops on the NRC standards will also be relevant and useful to the EPA ef forts in the area of site cleanup standards. The NRC will also participate in EPA efforts in this area, such as the activities of the EPA Interagency Working Group on Radiation Protection. The objective of the NRC and EPA cooperative efforts is to attempt to t i ach n agreement that the NRC standards established in the enhanced part icipatory rulemaking are sufficient to provide adequate protection to the public health and safety for NRC-licensed sites. The EPA efforts could thou fccus on the site clean-up standards for non-NRC licensed sites, such as DOE and D00 facilities. This is consistent with the principles and procedures set forth in a recent Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and EPA to guide each agency's actions in areas of niutual regulatory concern."

PROPOSED COMMISSION ACTIONS The normal pattern for NRC rulemaking is the development of a proposed rule by the NRC staff for Commission consideration, publication of the proposed rule for public comment, consideration of '.he comments by the NRC staff, and preparation of a final rule, as appropciate, for Commission approval. As directed and approved by the Commission, the NRC staff plans to enhance

" Federal _ Reaister, Vol . 57, 54127, November 16, 1992, " Memorandum of Understanding Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency" 10

participation in this process through a series of workshops for interested parties. The workshops are planned to elicit informed discussions of options and t.pproaches, and the rationale for options and approaches. While these workshops are not designed to seek " consensus" in the sense tiiat there is agreement (or at least a lack of disagreement) on the issues, the workshops are to be conducted at a very early stage of rulemaking to enhance participation of interested parties and the public with the following objectives: a) to ensure that the relevant issues have been identified; b) to exchange 'nformation on these issues; and c) to identify underlying concerns and areas of disagreement, and, where possible, approaches for resolution. It is the Commission's hope that the interactions tnat will take place among the participants in the workshg environment will foster a clearer understanding of the positions and concerns of the participants.

The proposed rulemaking activities, if pursued, are expected to result in publication of a proposed rule and a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). It is the Commission's intent that the criteria developed in this rulemaking would apply to almost all licensed facilities and sites."

Hcwever, it would not apply to sites already covered by a Commission approved decommissioning plan. An estimate of the numbers and types of facilities expected to be covered by this rulemaking can be found in the BACKGROUND section of this paper.

The Commission intends to publish a Notice of Intent to prepare a GEIS for this rulemaking effort. Separate meetings will be held with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and organizations to discuss the scope of the GEIS. However, information, comments, and suggestions from the discussion of the issues in this paper would be taken into account by the NRC in preparing the GEIS. In addition, one or more Regulatory Guides would be

" The criteria would not apply to the disposition of uranium mill tailings, low-level waste disposal facilities, or high level waste repositories since these have already been addressed in separate regulatory actions. They would apply, however, to uranium mills and ancillary facilities that support radioactive waste disposal (e.g., surface facilities for the high level waste repository).

11

published to provide licensees with guidance on how licensees could ,

demonstrate compliance with the regulation.

Tht: Commission's plan for implementing the rule is described below. The Commission would issue supporting documents concurrent with the rule which provide guidance on implementation of the residual contamination criteria in the rule. These documents would include a " Guidance Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of Licensa Termination" (NUREG/CR-5849) and a Technical Basis Document, " Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning: Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual TEDE" (NUREG/CR-5512). The Guidance Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys is intended to provide licensees with specific guidance on planning, conducting, and documenting site surveys which could be used to demonstrate that the site has been decontaminated to a level consistent with the Commission's criteria. The Technical Basis Document would provide an acceptable method for translating residual radioactivity levels (measurable quantities) to doses to individuals. Generic dose rate conversion factors are being deve'oped for screening. In addition, the technical basis is expected to include a computer model which can be used for conducting a screening scenario / pathway analyses with site-specific parameters so that site-specific dose rate conversion factors can be calculated. The NRC anticipates that in most cases these dose rate conversion factors could be used to determine compliance with criteria resulting from the rulemaking action.

Work on the supporting documents is already underway, and drafts are available for information. However, these documents are not intended to constrain the approach taken by the Commission in developing radiological criteria.

Instead, they are intended to provide a technical underpinning which would be useful irrespective of the approach or the criteria finally adopted by the Commission. These documents will be revised as necessary to conform to the final criteria.

In addition to the activities directly supporting a rulemaking action on decommissioning criteria, the NRC has a number of other related activities in progress in the general area of decommissioning. These activities include:

12 i

(1) rulemaking to define the timeliness of decommissioning, and (2) rulemaking to require licensees to list in one location all land, buildings, and equipment involved in licensed operations. These activities will not be specifically considered as part of the discussions on radiological criteria for decommissioning.

ISSVES F0H_ DISCUSSION Before the Commission formally proposes to proceed with rulemaking as described above, it is prepared to consider a wide range of alternative approaches, including maintaining the 1.t31ui gyp. The basic question before the Commission is, "What level or levels of risk, dose, residual radioactivity, or other decommissioning criteria, would provide c.cceptable protection of health and safety and the environment?" The answer to this question must be reasonable and practical to implement and to enforce for the broad range of facilities which require decommissioning.

The Commission believes that the key issues and sub-issues discussed below are at the foundation of the basic question possd above. Therefore, the Commission solicits comments and information on these issues before proceeding with a proposed rulemaking. These issues, and other relevant and substantial issues identified by interested parties, will serve as the basis of discussion at a series of workshops. Workshop participants will be expected to present the rationale for their preferences and positions in the workshop setting.

The workshop discussions will be used by the NRC staff in developing a proposed rule or, if considered appropriate, pursuing an alternative strategy for decommissioning.

The discussion of issues is divided into two parts. First are two primary issues dealing with the objectives for developing radiological criteria, and the application of practicality considerations. Following these issues are several secondary issues that are related to the primary discussions, but which were believed to warrant separate presentations and discussions. The-format of discussion for each issue is arranged by first describing the general issue to be considered, then providing a background discussion of the 13

I issue with potentially useful information for the workshop discussions. A ,

list of sub-issues is also provided to focus the discussions. It is important to recognize that the Comission does not regulate natural background or fallout from weapons or other sources beyond its authority. Therefore, the following decommissioning issues are to be considered as they apply to radioactivity that is both attributable to licensed operations and is above background levels.

The Comission does not intend to include the issue of Agreement State compatibility with NRC requirements as a topic for discussion in the workshops. The Commission has a concurrent process to establish a general policy on compatibility and does not believe it would be efficient to have two separate forums focussing on the same subject. The Commission believes that the ongoing process to establish the general policy on compatibility would be the more appropriate forum to discuss all compatibility issues. In addition, parties will be afforded the opportunity to comment on compatibility issues at the time of the publication of a proposed decommissioning rulemaking. This approach will allow the workshops to focus upon the central technical issues and approaches to the radiological criteria for decommissioning.

PRIMARY ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Issue I: What objective (s) should serve as the basis for establishing radiological criteria for decomissioning?

Discussion:

There are four fundamental kinds of objectives that could serve as the starting point for developing radiological criteria for decommissioning (i.e.,

release for unrestricted use). They are described briefly below.

1. PISK l.IMITS--Establishment of limits above which the risks to the public are deemed unacceptable. The objective in this case would be to find a limit above which risks would be unacceptable, and then establish 14

additional criteria to further reduce exposures to levels below the unacceptable to the extent practical. With this objective, a site could be released for unrestricted use if there were reasonable assurance or demonstration that members of the public would not be exposed to an unacceptable risk from radioactivity remaining at the site.

In practical terms this objective would mean that the radioactivity remaining at the site must be below some upper limit established by the NRC as representing the boundary of unacceptable exposure to an individual or group of individuals. Below this upper limit, exposures would be further reduced to levels which are "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) taking into account various factors of practical implementation (cost versus benefit), and socioeconomic considerations.

(See Issue 2)

2. RISK GOAL--Establishment of risk coals below which the risks to the oublic are deemed trivial . This objective would be to find a level of public and environmental risk below which risks are considered trivial, and then require decontamination to levels which are either below the goal, or as close to those goals as practical. Using this objective, a site would be released for unrestricted use if the radioactivity remaining at the site were as close as practical to the gods selected.

If the decontamination goals were met or exceeded, then no further consideration of decontamination would be required.

In practical terms, residual radioactivity levels greater than the corresponding risk goals would be accepted provided they are as close as reasonably achievable to the risk goals. If the levels of radioactivity were below the levels corresponding to the goals, then no decontamination would be required, regardless of feasibility.

3. BEST EFFORT -- Best effort emohasizina use of available technoloov.

The objective in this case would be to establish criteria representing what is achievable using the "best" available technology. A site would be released for unrestricted use if the only residual radioactivity 15

remaining at the site is that material which cannot be removed using the .

best available technology. This objective is technologically driven.

Theoretically, it could lead to removal of all radioactivity attributable to licensed activities or to an undefined level limited by the efficiency of the technology. Cost can be a factor, but is not taken into consideration on the basis of cost versus benefit balancing.

4. RETURN TO BACKGROUND LEVELS. This objective would be to remove all radioactivity attributable to licensed activities. A site would be released for unrestricted use only if all radioactivity attributable to licensed activity were removed. This objective could be difficult to implement either because of the costs associated in reducing residual radioactivity to background levels or because of the difficulty in demonstrating that a return to background levels had been achieved.

Demonstrating a return to background levels could be especially difficult at sites where the background levels were not recorded prior to beginning licensed operations, or at facilities licensed to use nuclides such as uranium or thorium which already exist in varying degrees in the natural background.

The following information is provided to aid discussion and is focused first on the Risk Limits and Risk Goals objectives and secondly on the Best Effort and the Return to Background objectives:

The fundamental principle underlying all NRC regulations and activities has been that radiation doses to members of the public from licensed activities must be reduced to levels established as limits (Risk Limits objective).**

The limits pose the boundary of unacceptable public risk regardless of the cost required to achieve such reduction, and risks should be further reduced to levels which are ALARA. This principle is articulated in 10 CFR Part 20, and the Commission currently uses this principle as the basis for decommissioning nuclear facilities. For example, the typical practice in 2'Although NRC regulations are designed to limit risk, not all limits in the regulations were established on the basis of risk.

16

^

decontaminating an area is to remove contamination through sweeping, washing, chemical stripping, scabbling thin layers of concrete, etc. The area is then surveyed and the results compared to the appropriate established criteria. If the area does not meet the criteria, then further steps are taken to reduce the level of radioactivity remaining. Once the levels are met, then further steps are considered to lower the remaining levels, but the decision to use these steps take into account the costs of the step and the reduction that is anticipated. This principle is also the basis for certain actions by the Environmental Protection Agency in the area of radiation protection, and is a fundamental principle outiined in both national and international recommendations.

In its recent recommendations on radiation protection, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has introduced the concept of a

" constraint" in establishing the appropriate level of protection for any particular source of r4diation exposure such as a decommissioned facility."

A constraint is a selected level, below the dose limit (the dose limit corresponds to an acceptable risk), to provide assurance that any given individual would not receive a dose in excess of the dose limit, even if that individual were to be exposed to several sources simultaneously. As described by the ICRP, the concept of ALARA would be applied after the constraint was met. This approach is similar to the approach already utilized by the NRC in establishing criteria for effluents from nuclear power plants in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I and by the Environmental Protection Agency in the generally applicable environmental standards such as 40 CFR Part 190 and in 40 CFR Part 61, the regulations implementing the Clean Air Act.

The Risk Goals objective was recently applied by the Environmental Protection Agency in the selection of values for radionuclides in drinking water. In its proposal, the EPA established maximum contaminant level aoals (MCLGs) for radionuclide levels, then established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) which were greater than the goals in recognizing factors such as availability of

" International Commission on Radiation Protection, ICRP Publication 60, November 1990.

17

technology, costs to remove radionuclides, and nurbers of individuals ,

involved. This is an extreme application of the risk goal principle, because the risk goal was legislatively set equal to zero. It is recognized that these goals may not be literally achievable. Furthermore, confusion has resulted from failure to distinguish between levels and goals.

In addition, several national and international agencies and organizations, including the NRC, have adopted or proposed numerical risk or dose levels for public exposure from activities and practices involving radioactive materials.

These risk levels may provide a basis for initiating a dialogue on numerical levels of risk or dose which would provide an acceptable basis for establishing radiological criteria for decammissioning. In addition, EPA has established or proposed other risk objectives that should be considered, such as EPA standards related to the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA also known as "Superfund") which may need to be considered in establishing criteria. For example, the EPA has established health based limits for numerous chemicals under RCRA. On May 20, 1992, (57 FR 21450) the EPA published a proposed rulemaking on the identification of hazardous waste which included, as an option, the use of multiples of these health based limits in determining the appropriate approach to management of the waste as hazardous or other solid waste. Although The proposed approach has been withdrawn, EPA plans to continue assessing the merits of approaches used by others ( 57 FR 49280, October 30,1992).

The Commission's current radiological criteria for decommissioning, are stated in terms of acceptable levels of residual contamination and external dose rates at one meter from contaminated surfaces. These criteria have been conservatively estimated, considering the most highly exposed population group of individuals, to result in potential doses ranging between one and several 18

' tens of millirem per year Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE/y) (exclusive of doses from radon and its daughter products)."

The EPA Clean Air Act and regulations provide practical examples of the application of the Best Effort regulatory principle. Among other things, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA Administrator to set new standards for emission of air pollutants based on the best, adequately demonstrated, technological system, taking into account the cost of achieving emission reduction, energy requirements, and any non-air impacts on the quality of health and the environment. Another secthn of the Clean Air Act permits the EPA Administrator, based on the same considerations as listed above, to set standards based on a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination of these." The EPA uses several implementing concepts in promulgating Clean Air Act regulations, including maximum achievable control technology (MACT), generally available control technclogies (GACT), and best demonstrated technology (BDT), and each of these concepts include considerations of cost and other factors listed in the Clean Air Act " These terms are defined in Appendix B.

The Return to Background objective for clean-up of facilities has been applied particularly for chemical hazards which do not normally exist in nature, and the approach often taken is to establish the clean-up objective u zero contaminants, in situations where some type of background, or natural concentrations of chemicals already exist, such as contaminants in a groundwater aquifer, the objective is sometimes expressed in terms of non-

" For some radioisotopes (e.g., '"U), acceptable residual levels may be based on non-radiological effects (e.g., the chemical toxicity of uranium) if the non-radiological effects are potentially more hazardous than the radiological effects.

"Public Law 101-549 (104 STAT. 2399) November 15, 1990, (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Sections 111 and 112).

"For examples, see 56 FR 64382, December 9,1991, " National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories:

Perchloroethylene Emissions From Dry Cleaning Facilities," (Proposed Rule),

and 55 FR 26953, June 29, 1990, " Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Processes" (Proposed Rule).

19 l

\

degradation of the existing situation, meaning that no :.dditional materials .

should be present beyond those already existing.

There may be some sites where the cost of meeting the selected criteria would be exorbitant. Consideration should be given to the disposition of such sites. Such sites could be handled in a manner similar to, or reflect elements of, the way the Commission deals with uranium mill tailings sites under the provisions of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, As Amenced (UMTRCA). Under the provisions of UMTRCA, taill tailings sites are partially decontaminated, stabilized, and subject to requirements for restricted use and long-term care and are not released for unrestricted use. EPA's CERCLA /Superfund Program also allows cost to be a consideration in i site cleanup; however, cost is typically not a primary consideration in setting environmental levels under RCRA or the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Implementation under these programs is primarily focussed on "Best Demonstrated Available Technology" (BDAT).

The NRC has several possible approaches to codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning. One approach is to establish limits in terms of dose in the ,

regulation and then provide listings of specific residual radioactivity levels for different radionuclides either as an appendix to the regulation or as a Regulatory Guide. This is the approach of 10 rrR Part 20 for the dose limits, where the values in Appendix B of Part 20 ser.e as a method for demonstrating compliance with the dose limit, rather than being a limit themselves.

Alternatively, the Commission could codify specific values for residual radioactivity for each radionuclide of concern as part of the regulation.

Similarly, a Risk Goal could be codified in terms of a dose or a risk, or alternatively, as specified levels of radioactivity. If the chosen decommissioning objective were Best Effort, then the method of determining the appropriate technology could be codified or the technology itself could be codified. For the Return to Natural Background objective, the method for determining background and accuracy of determinations could be the substance of the regulation or quantitative levels of radioactivity could be codified.

20

- The terms of the regulation could be important to the extent that they could affect the Commission's flexibility in applying the regulation and also the flexibility the licensees would have in demonstrating compliance. If objectives were codified in terms of specific measurable quantities such as

- concentrations of radioactive materials, neither the Commission nor the licensees would have flexibility to take site specific factors into account when trying to demonstrate compliance. However, if the objective were codified, individual licensees could conduct a site specific analysis to demonstrate to the Commission that their site would meet the objective with different residual radicactivity levels than those determined by the Commission based on a generic, conservative analysis.

Past experience has shown that changes to the regulations containing specific criteria are much more difficult to complete and require more resources than if the criteria are contained in a Regulatory Guide. However, past experience has also shown that enforcement of specific, measured values is unambiguous, direct, and unencumbered by lengthy litigation.

. Sub-issues:

1. At what numerical level would the regulatory objective for decommissioning provide an acceptable basis for proteci. ion of the public health and safety and the environment?

a. If the Commission chooses a Risk Limit objective, should the Commission use the public dose limits in 10 CFR 20 (100 mrem /y) as the limit on doses from residual radioactivity at decommissioned sites or establish separate constraints for decommissioning? If separate constraints are set, what should be the basis for these constraints?

b. If the Commission chooses a Risk Goal objective as its basis for establishing criteria, on what basis should the goal be established?

c. If the Commission chooses a Best Effort objective as its basis for establishing criteria, what level of technological availability should 21

be used? How often should the applicable areas of technology be updated .

for this criteria? What criteria should govern the number of applications of the technology to achieve lower levels of residual radioactivity, i.e., how would the point of diminishing returns be established? Recognizing that :.pplication of technology could result in widely varying levels of residual radioactivity, should an additional limit be placed on the level of residual radioactivity? If new technologies become available that are significantly more efficient in decontaminating a site, should these new technologies be applied to previously decommissioned sites? If so, what criteria should require the reopening of a site for decontamination?

d. If the Commission chooses the Return to Background objective as a basis for establishing criteria, how should background levels of radiation and radioactive material be established? For example, should a single level be chosen for each naturally occurring radionuclide, or should the local level of background be used, or some other criterion?

How should the chosen approach, single or local level, be measured and to what accuracy?

2. What other alternatives should be considered as a general framework for establishing objectives? Should the Commission consider combinations of the fundamental objectives and if so, which combinations and on what basis?

3. What role should EPA initiatives play in setting objectives? For example, the EPA used about a 10" lifetime risk of fatal cancer for members of the most highly exposed population group and a genercl lifetime risk level on the order of 10" as a basis for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants." Are there other established or proposed risk objectives that should be considered?

" 40 CFR Part 61, " National Emission Star.dards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Radionuclides." Final Rule and Notice of Consideration, 54 FR 51654, December 15, 1989 22 l

4

4. What consideration should be given to standards or objectives proposed or adopted by other groups (e.g. International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA))?

5. What should be done in those cases where sites cannot reasonably be decontaminated to the point where they are appropriate for unrestricted use?

6. How prescriptive should the regulation on radiological criteria for decommissioning be? For example, should the Commission codify the decommissioning objective (s) and provide details (e.g., residual radioactivity concentration, etc.) of a method of compliance elsewhere, such as in a Regulatory Guide, or should the regulation be more prescriptive?

Issue II. How should practicality considerations be applied,particularly if the Commission were to adopt either the Risk Limit objective or the Risk Goal objective in its radiological criteria for decommissioning rule?

Discussion:

ALARA is an acronym for al low 1111 reasonably achievable and means making every reasonable effort to reduce or maintain exposures to radiation as far below established dose limits as is practical taking into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to the state of technology, the economics of improvement in relationship to the benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of nuclear snergy and licensed material in the public interest. This covers a broad spectrum of actions and activities including cost-benefit analysis of procedures and proposals, availability and application of measurement technologies, and availability of disposal facilities. The same factors that have been traditionally used in radiation protection ( Risk Limit objective based) are also the factors that would be used in determining how close practical criteria can be made to a Risk Goal objective. Thus, in the present context, the term ALARA can be used to represent the oractical process (that is, cost versus benefit evaluation process) of reaching either the lowest acceptable 23

risk below an Risk Limit or the lowest risk above a Risk Goal as discussed .

in issue I.

The employment of practicality considerations, including costs, availability of technology, etc., has been recognized as valid in a number of contexts, both in the area of radiation protection and in the regulation of hazardous chemicals and wastes. For example, in recommendations approved by the President on Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure, the concept of ALARA was specifically included.d Likewise, the EPA has acknowledged the validity of considering costs and benefits in determining levels for regulation of chemicals in various arenas, as illustrated by the EPA response to a petition requesting revocation of food additive regulations." The NRC rulemaking is being conducted under the Atomic Energy Act, which allows consideration of ALARA, provided the public health and safety are protected.

There are a variety of ways the principle of ALARA can be applied, in both the Risk Lir.iit and Risk Goal objectives, ALARA cc.n be applied on a case-by-case basis with a site-specific analysis required for each site.

Alternatively, generic ALARA criteria could be established which would be applicable to all sites or to categories of sites. This latter alternative is equivalent to combining both the Risk Limit and the Risk Goal objectives.

A credible ALARA analysis must consider all of the costs and benefits associated with decontaminating a site to different residual radioactivity levels and must be carefully documented to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives and technologies have been considered. It should take into account: (1) radiation doses (public and occupational) and environmental impacts both from the process of decommissioning the site and from the residual radioactivity which will remain at the site after it has been decommissioned, and (2) all of the costs and other risks (e.g. occupational, "52 FR 2822, January 27, 1987.

"56 FR 7750, February 25, 1991.

24

n _- - --

transportation) associated with the decontamination and. decommissioning the l

site. It'should also' include an analysis which clearly demonstrates how overall custs and benefits change with changing residual radioactivity levels.

The analysis must be properly documented. This should include occumentation of

[ the methodology and the sources of data used in the analysis, and include an assessment of the uncertainties associated-with the results of the analysis.

ALARA analyses can be carried out on either a generic or site specific basis.

l

-Generic analyses by their very nature will produce results with higher uncer_tainty than _those that can be obtained from a site specific analysis.

P Therefore, a more conservative approach would have to be adopted when conducting a generic analysis to assure-that the results of the analysis are appropriate to all of the sites and activities to_which the analysis is

! expected to apply, i

Sub-issues:

l. Should the Commission require that ALARA be determined on a site-

! specific basis for each site to be decommissioned? If not, how should ALARA-be applied? Should the Commission establish generic ALARA criteria (i.e.,

Meeting the generic criteria would be considered ALARA for any site without i

need for further site specific cost versus benefit: analysis.)? If generic ALARA criteria are used, should a single ALARA criterion be established for

! all sites, or should different ALARA criteria be established for different categories of sites or facilities. If ALARA criteria are established for-different categories of sites, on what basis should the different categories

]

l be established?

' 2. Irrespective of whether ALARA is applied on a site-specific basis or generically, on what basis should the ALARA analysis rest? What level of review by _the NRC staff should be required to evaluate this basis? For example, if a cost versus benefit analysis were -to be used, what monetary value per averted collective dose (i.e. dollars / person-rem) should the Commission use as a basis for making the determination? How should the level of difficulty in measuring certain radionuclides in some circumstances be i-i 25 l

4-handled? How should the staff address societal and socioeconomic aspects of -

the ALARA analysis?

SECONDARY ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Secondary Issue A.: What additional considerations'should beItaken into account when establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning?

Discussioni in developing criteria, there is often a question of exactly who the standard is designed to protect. For example, the . criteria may be established to protect a theoretical, maximally exposed individual, regardless of whether such an individual could actually exist. Alternatively,1the criteria could be established on the basis of providing protection for more realistically exposed individuals, and could include consideration of a so called " critical group" which would be a small number of individuals:that are representative of that population likely to receive the greatest dose. A " critical group" L approach would often mean that it would be possible for the exposure of some

~

single individual to be greater than the average of the group, and therefore experience a dose or risk in excess of the criteria.

Related to the question of the characteristics of; the individual to be protected is the question of whether protecting individuals assures that' the population, as a whole, that might be exposed is adequately protected.

Various positions-have been advanced on this subject, with some indicating that protection of each individual automatically assures protection of the ,

population as a whole, and others indicating that additional criteria might- be-needed to protect the population. The hypothesis usually used for the reaulation of radiation dose is a linear relationship between dose and risk, implying that an increment of dose, no matter how1small, and no metter when delivered, will have an equal impact. This reasoning has been used to support 26

, ,m e- e- , , x., -

-,,---,m-,,-n - - , , -m--- -- -- - ------- - - - -- --

the position, in some cases, that an additional criterion should be applied to the collective dose from a particular facility or source. On the other hand, each decommissioned facility _can only expose a limited number of people.

In developing criteria for-decommissioning, the codified definition of decommissioning, i.e. to reduce radioactive materials levels to a point where the site is suitable for unrestricted use, becomes important. Once a site has been released, an individual or group could use the property and any structures on the property in any legally acceptable way they wished, including renovating the structures for other purposes, excavation or other property mot'ifications, and removal of materials from the site for use in other locations or for other purposes. Thus, when considering the appropriate

.eria for unrestricted use, consideration may also need to be given to the potential for reuse, recycling, or disposal of structures or materials remaining on the site.

An additional consideration in the selection of radiological criteria is the time frame over which the criteria should be applied. There have been a number of different values suggested and used in various standards of the NRC and EPA, ranging from 100 years to over 10,000 years. For radionuclides with relatively short half-lives, decay negates the need for evaluations in the distant future. However, for long-lived radionuclides, and particularly for 4

chains of radionuclides where daughter products will gradually increase-until ,

equilibrium is_ reached (e.g., uranium and thorium), the time frame for considerations is potentially important. Time periods are also important when certain pathways, such as a groundwater pathway, are considered, since the movement of radionuclides through the pathway may be very slow under certain circumstances.

Sub-issues:

1. .Should the Commission base its considerations on a theoretical, maximally exposed individual, or upon some type of " critical: group" approach?

What endpoint (s), such as cancer fatalities or cancer incidence, genetic effects, etc., should be used in establishing the radiological criteria?

27

2. Should the Commission include consideration of an exposed population in addition to providing criteria for individuals? If so, how should this influence the criteria?

3. Should the Commission consider the potential, after release for unrestricted use, for reuse of building structures and the removal of soil from a site in determining the appropriate criteria? If so, how should these factors be included? Should the removal of materials lead to a different standard than if materials were to remain on the site? If so, what is the rationale or basis? Should consideration be given to consistency or linkage with waste disposal regulations, particularly in situations where large quantities of material may require removal during the decommissioning process?

4. How far into the future should calculations be carried out when making estimates and determining the applicability of criteria? Should the Commission place > maximum value on the time frame to be considered, or should the criteria be applicable irrespective of time as which a maximum exposure could occur? For low levels of radioactivity should other changes in the environment, such as global warming and ice age cycles, geologic changes, etc., be factored into considerations of the applicability of the criteria?

Secondary Issue B.: If the objective the Commission adopts is either the Risk Limit or the Risk Goal, how should the regulation be structured with respect to exposure pathways? Should the rule apply comprehensively to all major pathways (routes) of expciure to the public or should the rule have criteria to limit specific exposure pathways, such as radionuclides in groundwater?

Discussion:

This issue arises because, over long periods of time residual radioactivity from decommissioned sites could contaminate groundwater that would later be used for drinking or irrigation. Furthermore, groundwater could be contaminated from more than one decommissioned site if another site were 28

nearby. The Environmental Protection Agency has established limits for radioactivity in drinking water" and, under the authority of RCRA and CERCLA, applies these limits to most potable ground water, but there are no Federal standards for groundwater contamination at decommissioned facilities.

In 10 CFR Part 20, the Commission has adopted the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) recommendations to account for avses from all pathways in one term. The Commission combines the doses from external exposures, ingestion and inhalation into the term, " Total Effective Dose Equivalent" (TEDE). That is, there is an internationally recognized methodology for weighing the doses and combining them into a single number, TEDE, that enables comparison of doses regardless of the pathway of exposure--

external, ingestion or inhalation."

- Conceptually, the NRC could establish an overall limit or goal for a site, and allow the contribution (dose or risk) from each pathway of exposure (e.g. air, water, direct radiation, food) to vary so long as the total remained consistent with the overall limit or goal. Alternatively, a secondary limit or goal in addition to the overall criterion could be established to limit the extent to which a particular pathway could contribute to the total. A third possibility is that separate criteria could be established for each particular exposure pathway, independent from each of the other pathways.

" 40 CFR Part 141. EPA regulations are applied to public water systems and not individual users. For beta and/or gamma emitters the dose to the whole body or an organ is limited to 4 mrem /y, while for alpha emitters Maximum Contaminant Levels are set in terms of pCi/1 and exclude radon and uranium. The EPA has published a proposed revision of these regulations, expressed in terms of a 4 rem /y effective dose equivalent (see 56 FR 33050).

The proposed revision also includes specific limits on radon and uranium.

" For example, the technical basis document translating radioactivity in the environment to dose (PROPOSED COMMISSION ACTIONS section above, p. 9) accounts for radiation doses from major sources originating in soil, air, and water and combines the respective pathway doses into a conversion factor for TEDE.

29

If a separate limit or goal were chosen for groundwater, then details of the ,

method for estimating doses or risk due to water use at future times after decommissioning yauld be required. One method could be to establish Generic Site Inventory Levels", as a screening criterion based upon an analysis for a generic site. The basis for this approach could be that residual radioactivity from sites meeting these generic screening levels would not be expected to contaminate drinking water supplies in excess of EPA standards g under any reasonably foresee:ble circumstances regardless of the type of facility, or size, location, or hydrogeologic features of the site. Such an

{

approach would also need to consider the possibility that building structures remaining onsite at the time of unrestricted release could be demolished and become part of the overall site inventory available to the groundwater. It is noted that Generic Site Inventory Levels that provide a reasonable margin of

{

safety for all sites are likely be extremely restrictive and thus impractical for some sites. Potential impracticality could be addressed by providing licensees who demonstrate that Generic Site Inventory Levels are unnecessarily _

restrictive for their particular site with the option of conducting a site specific analysis to project compliance with EPA drinking water standards or (

other criteria specified in the rule.

Sub-issues:

1. What consideration should be given to the potential for cumulative drinking water contamination from two or more decommissioned sites in the same general area?

2. If specific exposure pathway criteria were chosen, which pathways should have specific criteria and on what basis should these criteria be established?

• • A Generic Site Inventory Level would be total amount of radioactive material from the licensed operation which could be left at a decommissioned site without having to conduct a site specific analysis to determine whether allowing this radioactive material to remain at the site might result in unacceptable contamination of drinking water supplies.

30

\

3. If the Comission chooses specific criteria for groundwater or water use, should it establish Generic Site Inventory Levels for screening residual radioactivity _at decomissioned sites? Should the basis for such levels be to provide reasonable assurance that EPA drinking water standards will not be exceeded? Should a single Generic Site Inventory Level be established for all sites, or should levels be tailored to specific class of decomissioned tites (e.g., all nuclear power plant sites)? If so, on what basis should sites be categorized? Alternatively, should the Comission require that a site specific assessment of drinking water contamination potential be carried out for each site or a combination of the above?-

Secondary Issue C.: For sites where uranium, radium or thorium contamination may have resulted from licensed activities, how should exposures from radon

^

(MRn and MRn) and its decay products be considered when the facility is decommissioned?

Discussion:

Small quantities of uranium, radium and thorium are present in all- soil types throughout the United States. These naturally occurring materials are responsible for part of the natural background radiation exposure to members of the public, and are precursors for radon gas--the single greatest contributor to natural background exposures. Because radium occurs naturally in the environment, accurate determinations of doses from radon resulting from licensed operations can be very difficult. First, radium from licensed operations contaminating building structures will produce radon within the structure. This radon will be in addition to radon present due to naturally occurring radium within or under the building. Radon concentrations from natural sources in buildings are known to be variable, and may be subject to variations due to factors such as-building ventilation, weather, etc.

Secondly, a fraction of the radium in the soil of the site could be from licensed operations and could contribute to indoor radon levels of any building later constructed on the site. The correlation between soil concentrations of uranium,--radium or thorium have been shown to be not well 31

correlated with the eventual levels of radon within a building. Given the ,

above factors, approximate estimates of the amounts of uranium and thorium and their decay products (including radium) on site as a result of licensed operations might be made by taking direct measurements at a site in conjunction with offsite measurements to establish background levels.

However, the estimation of indoor radon concentrations attributable to licensed operations for the present and future structures appears elusive.*'

Based on information available to the NRC, there appears to be no practical way, using current technology, to distinguish between small amounts of radon from licensed operations and that radon resulting from natural background.

This inability appears to be due to (1) the natural background levels of radium in rocks and soils and the resulting concentrations of radon", (2) the variability of doses at a given site from naturally occurring radon",

and (3) the difficulty in correlating indoor radon levels with the concentrations of radon in the soil outside the structures." There are some who believe it may be virtually impossible to demonstrate that doses from

" Radon may also be a problem for a licensee that has never possessed materials containing uranium or thorium if they are located in an area of elevated natural radon levels. In these cases an individual in the structure could receive doses in excess of the criteria for decommissioning from sources outside the original responsibility of the licensee.

" Soil radium concentrations in the U.S. average about 1.5 pCi/g. The average indoor radon concentration is about 1.5 pCi/1 which produces an estimated dose to a resident (assuming 75% occupancy) of about 150 mrem /y.

EPA Radon Reference Manual, EPA 520/1-87-20, September, 1987, pp.3-5 and 7-2.

" The transport of radon through the environment is subject to

(

considerable uncertainty and variability. In the case of indoor radon, i variables such as highly localized geology, structural features, and changing l weather, among others, combine to make accurate prediction of doses very l di f ficult.

l 1 " As is the case for transport of radon through the environment, there are considerable uncertainties in the modeling of the movement of radon into a structure and the concentrations of radon that will exist at any given time.

Numerous studies have shown that seemingly identical structures in similar environments can nevertheless have considerably different radon I

concentrations.

32

1 radon which result from licensed operations have been reduced to levels much

! below the EPA suggested action level of 4 pCi/l for indoor radon."

l Sub-issues:

i

1. For sites where licensed activities have involved urnium, thorium, or other materials which decay to radon, are there oractica.1 and reliable ways to distinguish between radon and its' daughter products attributable to residual radioactivity from licensed operations at a site and that radon attributable to. natural background? Are there methods for estimating such doses with reasonable assurance using modelling techniques, direct measurements, or some i combination.of the two? At what dose levels can these distinctions be made? _

! 2. If there is-no way of distinguishing doses from radon resulting frcm licensed operations at levels well below the 100 mrem annual limit for public doses (10 CFR Part 20.1301), what alternatives would De considered acceptable?

j For example, would it be acceptable to require the licensee to demonstrate the l site had been cleaned up to levels approaching ambient background levels

measured at nearby representative sites or buildings? Would this alternative be acceptable even when these background levels would result in doses which are a large fraction-of, or even exceed 10 CFR Part 20 limits for the public (100 mrem /y)?

l-

[ 3. Should the Commission consider criteria similar to existing EPA guidelines and standards even though these doses may be higher than the public

! dose limits in the revised 10 CFR Part 20 (100 mrem /y)? Alternatively, should f the Commission require licensees to reduce doses from radon and its daughter k products as far below the EPA standard-as reasonably achievable? How would compliance with such a requirement be judged (see Issue II)?

i

" The level at which EPA suggests-action be taken to reduce radon concentrations-in homes. See "A Citizen's Guide to Radon, 2nd Edition "The Guide to Protecting Yobrself and Your Family from Radon", 402-K92-0001, Office

, of Air and Radiation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June,1992.

a 33 1

4

4. How should the Commission handle radon exposures in excess of EPA ,

guidelines in facilities of licensees that have never possessed uranium, radium, or thorium materials?

Secondary issue D.: How should the Conaission regard materials previously buried on-site under disposal provisions in 10 CFR Part 20 in the context of decommissioning?

Discussion:

Under certain conditions, licensees may dispose of radioactive wastes by burial on their own property. Before 1981, NRC regulations (10 CFR 20.304) allowed disposal, without prior approval, of limited quantities of specified nuclides under prescribed conditions. On July 28, 1981, 10 CFR 20.304 was revoked. However, onsite disposal can still be undertaken by individual licensees under 10 CFR 20.302, provided the disposal is specifically approved by the NRC or an Agreement State.

NRC requirements in 10 CFR 20.302 and 20.2002 allow licensees to request specific approval to dispose of licensed radioactive material in a manner not otherwise authorized by the regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002, any such request must be accompanied by specific data and analyses necessary for the staff to determine whether such disposal would have an adverse effect ,

on the health and safety of the public or the environment. The radioactive material involved in the requests-is generally very low activity waste contained in large volumes of material, such as sludge from sanitary sewers and storm drains, soils contaminated by spills and leaks, and dredged material from discharge canals and settling ponds.

l

! The requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 do not explicitly limit the quantity or i concentration of the radioactive material. Past practices have limited l approvals to small concentrations of radioactive material and correspondingly ,

low to very low potential doses to members of the public and the environment.

34

l l l Maximum potential doses have generally been less than a few millirem per j year.

} Sub-issues:

1. When preparing their sites for decommissioning, should licensees be I required to consider radioactive materials disposed of on-site in accordance

! with provisions of NRC or Agr:ement State regulations as part of the total l

inventory of residual radioactivity that must be considered when preparing a site for decommissioning?

! 1

{ 2. Should a site specific analysis of the risks, costs, and benefits be

! performed before a decision is made to take any remedial action (e.g.

exhumation and removal of buried radioisotopes, or delaying release of a site

[ to allow decay of short lived buried radioisotepes) involving radioactive material previously disposed of at a site?

i 4

i s

l i

J 35

- _, ,,. -. --- .m ,.,n-~. e- ,,w-- ., e- , , , , - - , - , , - - , - .,

4 - --,,rw----,---,n

i APPENDIX A A GLOSSARY OF GENERAL TERMS USED BY THE NRC" ACliyily (Radioactivity) is the rate of disintegration (transformation) or decay of radioactive material. The units of activity are the curie (C1) and the becquerel (Bq).

6L36 (acronym for "as low as is reasonably achievable") means making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits in this part as is practical consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest.

Backaround radiation means radiation from cosmic sources; naturally occurring radioactive materials, including radon (except as a decay product of source or special nuclear material) and global fallout as it exists in the environment from the testing of nuclear explosive devices. " Background radiation" does not include radiation from source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials regulated by the Commission.

Bvoroduct material means --

(1) Any radioactive material (except special nuclear material) yielded in, or made radioactive by, exposure to the radiation incident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear material; and (2) The tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from ore processed primarily for its source material content, including discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction processes. Underground ore bodies depleted by these solution

" 10 CFR Part 20.1003 (56 FR 24018, May 21, 1991)

, 36 l

l 4 -

w .

- --r e w-- ,.m- ,m,, - g.- --. -

1 1

1 l' extraction operations do not constitute

• byproduct material" within this i

definition, Collective dose is the sum of the individual doses received in a given period of time by a specified population from exposure to a specified source of radiation.

4 Commission means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its duly authorized representatives.

J Committed dose eauivalent (H,,,,) means the dose equivalent to organs or tissues of reference (T) that will be received from an intake of radioactive i material by an individual during the 50-year period following the intake.

1 4

i Committed effective dose eauivalent (H,,..) is the sum of the products of the weighting factors applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are irradiated and the committed dose equivalent to these organs or tissues 4

! (H:.s

• I W iHr...).

Eqig or radiation dose is a generic term that means absorbed dose, dose equivalent, effective dose equivalent, committed dose equivalent, committed effective dose equivalent, or total effective dose equivalent, as defined in l other paragraphs of this section.

1 Dose eauivalent (H,) means the product of the absorbed dose in tissue, f quality factor, and all other necessary modifying factors at the location of i interest. The units of dose equivalent are the rem and sievert (SV).

Effective dose eauivalent (H,) is the sum of the products of the dose

. equivalent to the organ or tissue (H,) and the weighting factors (w,)

applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are irradiated (H, -

Iw,H,) .

Exposure means being exposed to ionizing radiation or to radioactive material. ,

37 I

i

External dose means that portion of the dose equivalent received from -

radiation sources outside the body. l Generally anolicable environmental radiation standards means standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the authority of the j Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that impose limits on radiation l exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material, in the general environment outside the boundaries of locations under the control of persons possessing or using radioactive material.

Government aaency means any executive department, commission, independent establishment, corporation wholly or partly owned by the United States of America, which is an instrumentality of the Ur.ited States, or any board, bureau, division, service, office, officer, authority, administration. l or otner establishment in the executive branch of the Government. l Individual means any human being.

Internal dose means that portion of the dose equivalent received from radioactive material taken into the body.

11rania means a license issued under the regulations in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 30 through 35, 39, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, or 72.

Licensed material means source material, special nuclear material, or byproduct niaterial received, possessed, used, transferred or disposed of under a general or specific license issued by the Commission.

Licensee means the holder of a license.

Limits (dose limits) means the permissible upper bounds of radiation doses.

38

Member of the oublic means an individual in a controlled or unrestricted area. However, an individual is not a member of the public during any period in which the individual receives an occupational dose.

Monitorina (radiation monitoring, radiation protection monitoring) means the measurement of radiation levels, concentrations, surface area concentrations or quantities of radioactive material and the use of the results of these measurements to evaluate potential exposures and doses.

Nonstochastic effect means health effects, the severity of which varies I with the dose and for which a threshold is believed to exist. Radiation-

! induced cataract formation is an example of a nonstochastic effect (also called a deterministic effect).

1 l llE means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its duly authorized representatives.

Occucational dose means the dose received by an individaal in a restricted area or in the course of employment in which the individual's assigned duties involve exposure to radiation and to radioactive material from licensed and unlicensed sources of radiation, whether in the possession of the licensee or other person. Occupational dose does not include dose received from background radiation, as a patient from medical practices, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, or as a member of the genera; public.

Eghlic dose means the dose received by a member of the public fron exposure to radiation and to radioactive material released by a licensen, or to another source of radiation either within a licensee's controlled area or I in unrestricted areas. It does not include occupational dose or doses received from background radiation, as a patient from medical practices, or from voluntary participation in medical research programs.

Radiation (ionizing radiation) means alpha particles, beta particias, d

gamma rays, x-rays, neutrons, high-speed electrons, high-speed protons, and 39 p . - -- r, ,-.w_., --.- - . . - - - - . . - - , . - . .

other particles capable of producing ions. Radiation, as used in this part, does not include non-ionizing radiation, such as radio- or microwaves, or visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light.

Restricted area means an area, access to which is limited by the licensee for the purpose of protecting individuals against undue risks from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials. Restricted area does not include areas used as residential quarters, but separate rooms in a residential building may be set apart as a restricted area.

Site boundary means that line beyond which the land or property is not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the licensee.

Source material means--

(1) Uranium or thorium or any combination of uranium and thorium in any physical or chemical form; or (2) Ores that contain, by weight, one-twentieth of 1 percent (0.05 per-cent), or more, of uranium, thorium, or any combination of uranium and thorium. Source material does not include special nuclear material.

Soecial nuclear material means--

(1) Plutonium, uranium-233, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material that the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of section 51 of the Act, determines to be special nuclear material, but does not include source material; or (2) Any material artificially enriched by any of the foregoing but does not include source material.

l Stochastic effects means health effects that occur randomly and for which the probability of the effect occurring, rather than its severity, is l

assumed to be a linear function of dose without threshold. Hereditary effects i and cancer incidence are examples of stochastic effects.

Survey means an evaluation of the radiological conditions and potential hazards incident to the production, use, transfer, release, disposal, or pre-40

- - - m, -,,,,m.. -m .

i t

sence of radioactive material or other sources of radiation. When appropriate, such an evaluation includes a physical survey of the location of I

radioactive material and measurements or calculations of levels of radiation, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material present.

l Total Effective Dose Eouivalent" (TEDE) means the sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures).

Unrestricted area means an area, access to which is neither limited nor

controlled by the licensee.

l Uranium fuel cycle means the operations of milling of uranium ore, )

i chemical conversion of uranium, isotopic enrichment of uranium, fabrication of

! uranium fuel, generation of electricity by a light-water-cooled nuclear power plant using uranium fuel, and reprocessing of spent uranium fuel to the extent that these activities directly support the production of electrical power for public use. Uranium fuel cycle does not include mining operations, operations at waste disposal sites, transportation of radioactive material in support of these operations, and the reuse of recovered non-uranium special nuclear and byproduct materials from the cycle.

l Whole body means, for purposes of external exposure, head, trunk

(including male gonads), arms above the elbow, or legs above the knee.

l 41 r- --r-- -y----- --w----- = - = - - * - - - - -+----e ~ * + - - <v-- - - - =-n--'.

4 APPENDIX B TERHS AND CONCEPTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BEST EFFORT (TECHNOLOGY-CASED) APPROA PUT FORTH IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT" Best Available Control Technoloav (BACT) - An emission limitation based on the maximum degree of emission reduction which (considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs) is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques. In no event does BACT permit emissions in excess of those allowed under any applicable Clean Air Act provisions. Use of the BACT concept is allowable on I a case by case basis for major new or modified emissions sources in attainment j

areas and applies to each regulated pollutant."

i Best Demonstrated Technoloav (BDT) - The technology on which the EPA will base the standards, i.e., application of the best technological system of continuous emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.

Generally Available Control Technoloaies (GACT) - The EPA Administrator may elect under certain circumstances to promulgate standards or requirements which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants."

i

" Public Law 101-549 (104 STAT. 2399) November 15, 1990, (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990).

" " EPA Glossary of Environmental Terms and Acronym List", OPA-87-017, August 1988.

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Section 111(a)(1)

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Section ll2(d)(5) 42

Maximum Achievable Control Technoloav (MACT) - Emissions limitations based on the best demonstrated control technology or practices in similar sources to be applied to major sources emitting one or more of the listed toxic pollutants.

Residual Risk - The quantity of health risk remaining after application of the MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology)."

" Glossary of Terms - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

" Glossary of Terms - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 43

l Enclosure C Tsd2rel hglater / Vol. $8, No. 9 / Thursday, knuary 14, 1993 / Propos:d Rules 4363 sUPPLEWENTARY INFoRMAT ON: poultry products, imported into the minimally burdensome and maximally j,

~

Background United States. This proposed rule would efficient. Therefore, the Department benefit them by providing an alternative specifically seeks comments and l l

The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 port of entry. The convenience this suggestions from the public regarding I (referred to below as the reguladons) alternative pc,rt would provide would any less burdensome or more efficient contain, among other things, provisions not result in any significant economic alternadve that would accomplish the concerning the importauon of birds and benefit. Further, we do not expect that purposes described in the proposal.

poultry into the United States. These this proposed rule,if adopted, would Comments suggesting less burdensome provisions are designed to prevent the result in any increase in the number of or more efficient altematives should be introduction of exotic Newcasde disease these birds snd poultry, and poultry addressed to the agency as provided in and other communicable diseases of products, imported into the United this notice, i poultry into the United State:. States Section 92.102(a) lists special ports Under these circumstances, the List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 92

{

) designated for the importation of pet Administrator of the Animal and Plant Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, i birds imported under the provisions of liealth Inspection Service has Poultry and poulty products,

$ 92.101(c)(3). Section 92.203(d) detennined that this action wnuld not Quarantine, Reporting and 1 designates limited ports available for the have a significant economic impact on recordkeeping requirements.

] entry of poultry and poultry products. a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly,9 CFR Part 92 would be 1 suca as poultry test specimens, or amended as follows' l hatching eggs and day old chicks, which Executive Order 12778 '

do not appear to require restraint and This proposed rule has been reviewed PART 92-lMPORTATION OF CERTAIN

holding fa::ihties. in accordance with under Execudve Order 12778, Civil ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND

} $ 92.101(f). performing or theatrical Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is CERTAIN ANIMAL AND FOULTRY 2

birds may be imported at tha ports of adopted: PRODUCTS: INSPECTION AND OTPER j entry listed in 4 92.102(a) or 6 92.203(d). (1) All State and local laws and REOUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN l And,in accordance with $ 92.201(c), regulations that are inconsistent with MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND -

, erforming or theatrical poultry may be thIs rule willbe reem od; SHIPFING CONTAINERS THEREON

"* 8

$9 203 d). to thi ru e and 1. The authority citadon for part 92 j Pet birds; performing or theatncal (3) Administradve proceedings will would continue to resd as follows:

j birds, and performing or theat. Heal not be required before parties may file Authority: 7 U.S C 1822; to U.S C 1306; poultry are generally imported in small suit in court challenging this rule. 21 U.S C 102-105,111,134a.134b,134c.

i numbers and in carrying cases or cages, 134d.134f and 135; 31 U.S.C 9701; 7 CFR

! and do not require restraint and holding Paperwd Mucha Act 2.17,2.51 and 371.2(d).

facilities. It appears that Port Canaveral, This proposed rule contains no new

' FL, could be used for the impeation of information collection or recordkeeping $ 92J02 @ mended) these birds and poul , and for certain requirements under the Pa rwork , In $ 92.102. aragraph (a) would be other poultry and po try products that Reduction Act of 1980 (44 S.C. 3051

• d by

],"y,'r I , armd t "Mi d ,

do not require resuaint and holding et seq.).

j facilities. Therefore, we propose to add Regulatory Reform: Lena Burdensome $ 92.203 (Amended)

Fort Canaveral, FL, to the list of ports 3. In $ 92.203, paragraph (d) would be i or More Efficient Alternatives in $$ 92.102(a) and 92.203(d). amended by adding " Port Canaveral,"

l 1:secutive Order 12291 and Regulatory co n i ed to immediately after " Jacksonville,".

ngo t s at t ory flexibility Act and regulatory mandates in a manner Dons in Washington. DC this ath day of l We are issuing this proposed rule in that best serves the public interest. January 199.1.

i conformance with Executive Order Therefore, where legal discretion L*nal'I Kla8

! 12291, and we have determined that it permits, the Department actively seeks Acung Administmtor. Animal and Plant

' is not a " major rule." Based on to promulgate regulations that promote Hechh laspecuon Senice.

information compiled by the economic growth, create jobs, are (FR Doc. 9h924 Filed 1-13-93; 8.45 aml

, Department, we have determined that minimally burdensome, and are easy for emo cooc me->s-as this proposed rule would have an effect the public to understand, use, or comply

, on th s economy ofless than $100 with. In short, the Department is million: would not cause a major committed to issuing regulations that NUCLEAR REGULATORY i increase in costs or prices for maximite not benefits to society and COMMISSION 4

consumers. Individualindustries, minimite costs imposed by thosa Federal. State, or incal government regulations. This principle is aruculated 10 CFR Part 20 agencies, o: geographic regions; and in President Bush's January 28,1992, would not cause a sign!ficant adverse memorandum to agency heads, and in Radiological Criteria for effect on cornpetidon. employment. Executive Orders 12291 and 12498. The Decommisaloning of NRC-ilconoed

}; investment, producuvity, innovauon, or Department applies this princip(s to the Facilities; Workano on the ahnlity of United States based full extent possible, consistent with law. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory enterprues to compete with foreign. The Department has developed and Commission.

based enterprises in domesuc or export reviewed this regulatory proposal in markets, AcnoN: Notice of workshop.

accordance with these principles.

I This proposed rule if adopted, would Nonetheless, the Department believes SUWARY:The Nuclear Regulatory affect owners of pet birds, performing or that public input from allinterested Commission (NRC)is preparing to theatrical birds, performing or theat:: cal persons can be invaluable to ensuring initiate an enhanced pardcipetory poultry and certain other poultry and that the final regulatory product is rulemaking on establisidng the

4364 rederal Repater 1 Vol. 58, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 1993 f Proposed Rules

• radiological crNria for the so that their konsos may be terminated. The Comminion bebes that the is decommissioning of NRC-lemnsed %is requires that the tsdioactivHy in a need to incorporate into its regulatians facihties.%e Commission entrads to land, Eround water.1mildings, and radiological enteria for termination of er' hance the participasion of a flucted equiprnent resulting from the limosed licenses and n lense of land and intcasts in the rulemaking by sohdting operetian te reduce <f to levols that structurws for antestricted use. The commentary imm thus isterests on the allow the prognuty to be releesed for intent of this odion would be to tvorto, rulemaking issun before the staff unrestriced use. Limre,eus must them a clear and consistent regulatory basis develops the d+ sit proposad rule. The demanstrate that all facilities have beco for determining the estent to which Comnussion plans to conduct a senes of properly decontaminated and that lands and structures must be wortshops to solict! commentary fraro radioacute material has tsen decontaminated tefore a site can be affected interests on the fundatrmetal transferred to enthcrited radpients. decommissioned. The Commission approaches and issues that snust be Confirmatory surveys are conducted by believes that inclusion of cr;tene in the addressed in establishing the NRC, where appropriate. to verify that regulations would result in incte rodeological criteria for situs mmt NRC radiological criteria for efficient and consistent licensing decommissioning h first worishop decommissioning. actions related to the numerous and will be held in Chiago, Illinois on The types of nuclear fuel cycle frequently templex site January 27 and 28,1992 and willbe facihties thet willrequire decontamination and decommissioning open to the public. decoounissioning include mucAcar activities anticipated in the futcre. A Darts: January 27,1993 for 9 a.rn. to G Power plants; non power (research and rulemaung ehrt would also provide en p.ma January 28,1993 from 8.30 a m. to test) reactors; fuel fabrication plants, opportunity to reassess the basis for the 430 p m. utanhun hexafluoride producuan residual centemination levels contained As discussed later in this notice, the plants, and independent apunt fual in existing guidance in light of changes workshop discussions will focus on the storage irstallations In addition there in basic radiation protection standcrd heues and approaches identified in a are currently about 24,000 materials and decommhsloning expenence RulemH3 !ssues Paper prepared by licensees. About one third of these are ~ obtained during the past 15 years.

the NRC staff. The Commission will NRC licensees, edile the remaindar are The new cnteria would apply to the accept written comments on the licensed by Agreement States actiog decommissioningof power reactors, Rulernakingissues Paper from the under the authonty of tb Atomic non-power reactors, fuel repromssing public,as well as from workshop Energy Act, section 274. plants. fuel fabrication plants, uranium participants Written comments should These Uccusees inciude universities. hexafluorida production plants, be submitted by May 28.1993, medicalinstitutions, radioactive source independent spent fuel storage AooaT.ssts:The workstop will be held manufacturers,and companies that use installations,and materials licennes at the Parlliyatt ilotel400 North radioisoto The criteria would epply to nuclear About 50%ofpes for7,500 NRC's industrial purposes.

materials facilities that operate through their Michigan Avenue, Chicago. Illinois.

Send written comments on the licensees use either sealed radioedive nonnal lifetime, es well as Io those that Rulemakirg issues Paper to: Secrotary, sources or small amounts of short-hved may be shut down prematurely. The U.S Nuclear Regulatory CornmisrJou, radioactive materials. Decwnmissioning proposed enteria would not apply 1o Washington, DC 2.05E5, A'ITN: of these facilities should be relatively uranium (other than source raaterial)

Docketing and Service Branch. !!and simple because there is usually little or mines end mill tallings. high4etel waste deliver comments to 11555 Rockville no residual radioacijve contamination. repositories, ur low 4evel waste disposal PAe. Rockville, Maryland between h45 Of the remaininE 50% a small number faciltties.

a m. and 4.15 p m. on Federal workdays. (e radioactive source manufacturers. Until the new citeria are in place, the The Rulemaking issues paper is na iopharmaceutical producers,and Commission intends to proceed with the available imm francis 1 Camema (See radioactive ore pnessors) conduct decommissioning of nuclear facihties on FOR FURTHER MORMATION CCNTaCT). operations that could produce a site specific basis as the need arises FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COMTACT: substantial radioactive contamination in consMering existing enteria. Case and rti ns of the facility.%ese facihties, activity 4pecific nsk decisions will Francis 1 Cameron, Spec.ial Counsel for fanhe fuel cycle facilities identifiedcontinue to be made as necessary during Public Liaison and Waste Managemsot.

above, must be decontaminated before the pendency of thts procest Office of theGeneralConasel.

Washington, DC 20555. Telephane: they can be safely released for

, The Labanrad Participatory j 30h504 @ 2. Y,"re undredNRCand Agreement RulemaLing l SUPPLEMENTARY INFORManog State licenses ere terminskd each year, The Commissian bolin es at is The majority of these licenses involve desirable to provida for early and Background limited operations, produce httle or no comprehensive input from abaed The NPC has the statutory radioactive contammation, and do not interests on important public health and responsibility for protection of health present complex decommissinning safety issues, such as the development end safety related to the use of source. prchlems or parential nsis to pubbc of radioloG'calcnt.ma for byproduct, and special nuclear material heakh or the anvironment imm residual dec<sumissacing Accorthngly, the under the Atomic Energy Act %e NRC contamination. Jiowever, as the nuclear Commission is initiating an enha ncing believes that one portion of this industry matures, st is axpected that participato y rulemaking1o estabbsb responsibility is to ensure the safe and more and more of the larpar r ylaar these tnteria. The objecuse of the timely decommissioning of nuclear facilities that have been opai Ung kx a rulemalingis to enbanos the I facilities which it licenses and to number of years will reach the and of partidpation of a%cted inserestsin the

) prwide guidance to li%neoes on how to their usefulles and be rulemaking by soliciting commentary plan for and prepare their snes for d ecorn missiorci There fore. both the from these interests on the rulemaling decommissioning. Onm licensed number and complexity of facil)tia that issues before the h7C staff deyelops the activities here ceased, licensees are will require decommissioning is dis!t proposed rule.TN NRC sta1I will required to decmsamission their Wins expected to increase. consider this carnawmary in the

N l

Fed:rd Rigister / Vol. 58, No. 9 / Thursday Jcnuary 14, 1993 / Propostd Rults 4365 i

development of the draft proposed rule, final rule for Commission approval, will participation on previous Commission l* as well as document how these occur, te or licensing actions.

l comments wer, considered in arriving Participante latoYrd a th criterion emphastres l at a regulatory approach. The parucipation from organtutions within '

Commission tieheves that this will be an in order to have a manageable the region encompassed by the t

effective method for illuminating the discussion among the workshop workshop. As much as practicable, i decision making process on complex j participants, the number of partici and controversial public health and in each workshop rnust be limited. pants operate those within organlutions the region, as opposedthat to primarily

• safety issues. This approech will ensure Based on discussions with experts on that the important luues have been regional units of national organlutions.

j workshop facilitation, the NRC staff will have priority in terms of identified; will assist in identifying believes that the opumum slu of the potentialinformation gaps or participating in the corresponding I implementation problems; and will workshop group is fifteen to twenty regional workshops. Organiutions with participants. Due to differing levels of a national standing will be part of the facilitaie the development of potential interest in each region, the actual " national" workshop to be held in I

solutions to address the concerns that number of participants in any one Washington, DC.

affected interests may have in regcrd to workshop, as well as the number of *

Workshop Tonnat 4 the The rulemaking, early invo lvement of affectedarticipants that represent a particular interests in the development of the draft fnterest in any one workshop, may To vary, assure that each workshop

{ proposed rule will be accomplished invitations to attend the workshops will addresses the issues in a consistent j be extended by the NRC staff using manner, the w rkshops will have a through a series of workshops. A j workshop format was selected because averal selection criteria. First, to ensure common pre-defined scope and agenda it will provide representatives 4 he that the Commission has the benefit of focused on the Rulemaking Issues Paper 1 t the spectrum of view oints on the discussed below. However, We affected interests with an opponunity to w r shop format willbe sufficiently ting to I

discuss the rulemaking issues with one another and to question one another issues, the NRC staff fs attomke full achieve the partici ation of t flexible to allow for the introduction of

about their respective positions and range ofinterests tkat may be affectedany additionalissues that the the rulemaking. The NRC staff has Participants may want to raise. At each concerns. Although the workshops are b[entified 1 several general interests thatthe NRC staff will begin each workshop, e

intended to foster a c!csrer understanding of the positions and will be used to select specific workshop discussion period with a brief overview participants--State governments, local of the work h p willbe devoted to a j concerns of the affected interests, as well as to identify areas of a 8 " * *'"t8'I'Ib*18 " * **"'8' discussion of the issues by the and disagreement,it is not threement a participants. The workshop commentary the workshop process to attempt e intent to of [*due e,jsens f ey s'

, ,,' w 11 be transcribed and made available develo a consensus agreement on the and non. fuel cycle facilities. In addidon articipants and to the public.

I rulema ing issues. In addition to the I then intemsts, the staff also plans to to[ersonnel from The Keystone . Center I

invite rapresentatives from the a nonprofit organir.ation located in commentary from the worksheft be Keystone, Colorado, will serve as participants, the workshops wi contracting ind,ustry that performs i open to the public and the public will decommission.ng work and neutnl facilitetors for each workshop.

j be provided with the opportunity to representatives from professional The facilitators will chair the workshop j

comment on the rulemaking issues and s cieties, such as the Health Physics sessions and ensure that participants are

the workshop discussions at discrete S ciety and the American Nuclear given an opportunity to express their intervals during the workshops. S caety.The NRC anticipates that most viewpoints, assist participants in i The normal process for conducting of the participants will be articulating their interests, ensure that Commission rulemakings is NRC staff representatives of organir.ations. participants are iven the opportunity to

development of a draft proposed rule for However,it is also possible that thers question each ot er about their Commission review and approval, may be a fm participants who, because respecuve viewpoints, and assist in publication of the proposed rule for of their expertise and influence, will keepin the discussion moving at a pace i public comment, consideration of the partici ate without any organizational that wi 1 allow all major issue areas to

! comment by the NRC staff, and affilist on. be addressed.

preparation of a draft final rule for The second selection criterion is the Rulemaking Issues Paper i Commission approval, in 'he enhanced ability of the participant to The NRC staff has prepared a i participatory rulemaking, not 'only will knowledgeably discuss the full range of Rulemaking issues Paper to be used as l

comments be solicited before the NRC the rulemaking issues. The NRC staff i staff prepares a draft proposed rule, but a focal point for the workshop i

wishes to ensure that the workshops discussions. This paper, which will be the mechanism for soliciting there early will elicit informed discussions of distributed to participants in advance of i comments will also provide an options and approaches, and the the workshops, sets forth in neutral

! opportunity for the affected interests rationale for those options and and the NRC staff to discuss the issues terms the issues that must be addressed approaches, rather than simple in the rulemaking, as well as with each other, rather than relying on statements of opinion. The NRC staff's background information on the nature 1

the traditional one.to-one written identification of potential participants correspondence with the NRC staff. and exteat of the problem to be -

has been based on an evaluation of such addressed. In framing the issues and After Commission review and approval factors as the extent of a potendal approaches discussed in the of the draft proposed rule that is participant's experience with a broad developed using the workshop Rulemaking issues Paper, the NRC staff commentary, the general process of range of radiation protection issues and has attempted to anticipate the variety types of nuclear facilities, specific of views that exist on these approaches l Issuing the proposed rule for public experience with the decommissioning i comment NRC staff evaluation of and issues. The paper will provide issue, and the extent of a potendal assistance to the participants as they

! comments, and preparation of a draft participnnt's substantive comment and prepare for the workshops, suggest the

'"'L.,~. - - -

'J

43G6 Tederal Register / Vd, La, No. 0 / Thursday, knuary 14, 1993 / Propraed Rules .

worksho apenda, and establish the Dated er Rxbdas. MD tids 9+b dey of Urusets Almraft Certificatlon Offios, level of i dinicrJ discussion that can be January,1993. FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle East expected at the workshops. Tb For the Nuclear Regulatory Commisiluri Office,clo American rmbassy B-1000 worb shop discussions are intended to samnl I. Chilk, Urussels, Belgium: Telephone (3:21 be used by the statif in developing the Secretary of the Gommuan. 513 36.30 ext. 2710, Facsimile (3221 draft propowd rule Prior to the (FR Nc. 9he% Fited t-1b9L 8 s5 eml 230 08 99; or Mr. William TimWrlake, workshops no staff pmitions will be m,4 ces, m, Proiact Ofhoer, Small Airphne taken on the rulernaling approaches and -- Directorate, Airplane Certification issues identified in the kulemaking Service. TAA,1201 Walnut, suite 900, Issues Paper. As noted earlier, to the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Kansas City, Missouri 64100: Telephone sixtent that the Rulemaktr,g Issues Paper (816) 42&4932; Tacsirnite (8161424-fails to identify a pertinent issue. this Federal Aviation Administration 2169 ra.sy be cormeted at the worksh3P $UPPLEUEN1ARYANFORuaTKrt; sessions 14 CFR Part 39 l The discuulon of issues is divided ""

(Docket No. 32-CE-MAD]

into two parts. First are two primary intomsted persens are imited to issues dealing with: (1) The objectives Airworthiness Directives; Avione participate in the mening of the for developing radiological criterlu; and Mudry & Cie Model CAP 10B Airplanes proposed rule by submitunF ruth (21 application of practicolity written data, views, or arguments as consideradoes. The objecth es ActNcy: Federal Aviation they may desire. Communications constitute the fundamental approach to Administration. DOT, should identify the Rules Dach et the establishment of the radiole6ical Action:N ties of proposed rulemaking nurnber and be submitted in triplicate to

{ cnteria and the NRC staff has identified (NPRh0 i the address specified above. All four distim.t possibilities including: communications received on or before (1) Risk 11mits, which is the swuAm This nouce pmposes to establ.shrnent of limiting values above supermode Airworthiness Directive (AD) the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considemd b fore trdJng which tbs risks to the public r.re 8%24-51, w hich currently requires action en the proposed rule.The demed ut. acceptable, but allows for inspir. ting both the center witg low *'

proposals contained in this notice may c+1teria to be set below the limit using' skin and main s at upper flange at the be changed in !!ght of the comments practicality considerations; wing root areas r cracks on certain receiveJ.

(2) Pask Goals. where a goal is ^*I a Cie Model CAP 100 Comments are specifically invited on selected and practicality cuasiderations ay. amis, an"' M"d'j npg any cracked the overall regulatory, economic, are used to establish cnteria as close to part. An accident inve:;t tion has environmental and energy aspects of the goal as pract;rab mmled cwhg an3 fal um oNis the proposed rul . All comments (3) Best Lffort, where the whnohyy wing mab rpar in the viclalty of a bolt submitted will be available, both before for decontamluation considerwi to le hole at the wing root area on one of the and after the cbsing date for comments, the best e vailable is applied and effected airplanes that was in in the Rules Dociet for examination by (4) Return to Preexisting Background' c mphance wM 1e existing AD.The interested persons. A report that wbm the decontamination would r p sed action wocid require summarirrs each FAA public contact continue until the radiological conditions were the seine as esisted fnstshg an impdon op@er.ing in the wing. nMM inspect .e upper concerned with the substance of this propor,al will be filed in the Rales prior to the hceuwd activities. and lower wing spar ceps for cricks, Docket.

.g ' and repairmF any cracks The actions ,

Commenters wishing the FAA to s era e ndary asu is nre related specif ed by the proposed AD are acknowledge receipt cf their com,ments to the discusdons of the primary issues' intended to prevent fatigue lauure of the submitted in response to this notice but u hich the NRC staff believe warrant wing c ntro which could lead to loss ofmust submit a self-addressed, stateped sfr.airplane.

f the separate presentations and discussions. postcard or, which the following These secondary issues include the time DAu Comments snust be mceiwd on stahment h mado Commpts to frame for dose calculation, the or lefon March 2E 1993. DodM No. 92-G-W.M W indisiduals or groups to be protected, ADontssts: Submit comments in Postcard willbe date stamped and the use of onparate criteria for specific triplicate to the Federal Aviation retumed to the commenter.

exposure pathways such as A dministration (FAA). Central Region. Avadability of NPRMs groundwater, the'trestment of redon, Offim of the Assistant Chief Counsel. Any and the treatment of previously buried Attention: Rules Docket No. 92-CE NPRM herstm may obtain a copy of this met crials. AD rcom 1558,601 E.12th Stroet. submitting a request to the h Rulemaking Inues Paper will be Kansas City. Abssouri 64106. Comments FAA, Central Region.O!! ice of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

pmvided to each potential workshop may be inspected at this location Rules Docket No. 92-CE-23-AD, room participant. Additional copies will be between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,Manday l avai!sble to members of the through Friday, bolidays esoepted. 1558,001 E.12th Street, Kansas City.

attendants at the workshop.publicCopies will inSernce information that is docussed Minouri H106' also be available from the NRC staff in the proposed AD may be obtained Discussion contact identified above. In addition to from Avions Madry & Cie, B.P. 214 AD B0-24-51. Amendment 39-4119.

the comments on the Rulemaking issues 27300 Bernay Franm;Telaphone(H) currently requires inspecting both the Paper provided at the workshops, the 32 43 47 34; Facsimile (33) 32 43 47 90.

center wing lower skin and main spar Commissicalis also receptive to the This information may also be examined upper flange in the wing root amas for submittal of writtsn cornments on the at the Rulas Docket at the addreas above. cracks on certain Avions Mudry & Oe rulemaking issues as noted under the FOR FURTHER WWOAnaATION CONTACT: Mr. Model CAP 10B sirplanes, and repeiring heeding oaits. Raymond A.Stoer.ProgramO!ncer, any cracked part.

k

a.u v.m. . ,,

i i

Decommissioning Case Studies A Sampling of Actual Decommissioning Case Studies for Review by the Participants in the Workshops that Support the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning January 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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

Decommissioning Case Studies Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently initiated an Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking to develop radiological criteria for decommissioning for NRC-licensed facilities. NRC is enhancing opportunities for participation of affected interests on the rulemaking issues before the NRC staff develops the proposed rule. Consistent with this objective, NRC is conducting a series of workshops to solicit commentary from affected' interests-on the fundamental approaches and-issues-that-must be_ addressed in establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning. As:

announced-in the Toderal Register on December 11, 1992 (57 TR 58727), the workshops will be held in January through May 1993 at-seven locations:throughout the_ United-States.

In approving the plan for the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking to develop Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning, the Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare summaries of actual decommissioning cases and provide them to workshop participants as background information. The Commission intended the cases to include several types of facilities and cover a range of sites.

The objective of providing the cases to the workshop participants was to illustrate the practical aspects of decommissioning facilities with radiological contamination, including examples of cases where decommissioning was hampered by-technical, cost, administrative, or other factors.

This paper presents a suite of six case studies to illustrate "real world" decommissioning experiences and make tangible the abstract concepts, such as radiation dose, risk, and monitoring limitations, that lie at the root of the discussions at the workshops. The case studies represent a range of facilities, including a research power reactor, two fuel cycle facilities, two nuclear materials facilities, and a nuclear missile accident site. Two of the facilities primarily involved naturally.

occurring radioactive materials; the other four primarily involved artificially produced radionuclides. The sites are also distributed geographically in the States of Connecticut, New.

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota.

The sites are summarized in Table 1.

Although not all of the facilities.were licensed under the Atomic Energy Act by NRC or an Agreement State,.they all illustrate practical aspects of decommissioning nuclear facilities. Three of the facilities are currently licensed by NRC. One of-the facilities was licensed by an Agreement State-prior to decommissioning, after which the license was terminated. One site was licensed by an Agreement State, but is currently being-remediated under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)

Superfund Program under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, .

Compenr.ation, and Liability Act. One of the facilities was not licensed and is being remediated under the Installation

.an Restoration Element of the Defense Environmental Restort Program by the Air Force. Cleanup activities at this site are being monitored by EPA as if the site was in the Superfund program.

For each caso study, liRC staff has assembled summary information ,

that illustrates specific decommissioning issues. The summaries include brief descriptions of the facility, nature and extent of '

contamination, decommissioning criteria, decommissioning approach, current status, and lessons learned. Where appropriate, maps and diagrams have been included to provide the reader with a visual image of the extent and nature of decommissioning action. Although more detailed information is available for each site, the case studies have been intentionally kept brief and focused to illustrate generic issues and avoid undue attention during the workshops to individual cases.

Table 1. Summary of Decommissioning Case Studies Location Facility Principal Regulatory Name Type Radionuclides Status UNC-Naval Montville, CT Fuel High Enriched Active NRC Products Facility Uranium License ,

Kerr-HeGee Crescent, oK Fuel Low Enriched Active NRc Cimarron Facility Uranium, License Plutonium Pathfinder Sioux Falls, Research Activation Active NRC Atomic Power SD Power. Products ("Co, License Plant Reactor "Ni, "Fe)

GTE-Sylvania Manchester, Materials Thorium Te rminated NH Facility NH License j Redium Woodside, NY Haterials Radium Terminated Facility NY License; l Chemical Superfund I company Site i BoMARC ocean County, Nuclear Plutonium Defense Missile NJ Weapons Installation Accident Site Site Restoration Program The decommissioning case studies follow. Readers with questions should contact Michael Weber, 11RC, Mail Stop SE4, Washington, DC 20555 or (301) 504-1298.

11

UNC-Naval Products Septic Leach Field Montville, CT Decommissionina Issues

+ Technical basis for translating residual contamination into radiological dose and/or risk

. Averaging of residual contamination concentrations over clean soil due to heterogeneous nature of contamination Facility Description The Utic Incorporated (Uf1C) flaval Products facility fabricated nuclear fuel for naval reactors at a f acility in Montville, CT. Beginning in 1974, the Mnntville f acility made operational discharges of small concentrations of highly enriched uranium to an onsite septic field as an effluent from the liquid radioactive waste treatment facility. These effluents were discharged in accordance with the license for the UtiC-Montville f acility. Discharge of enriched uranium to the leach field terminated in tiovember 1987, when t4RC authorized discharge of the waste water directly to the sanitary sewer system of Montville, CT, which was acceptable because of the low concentrations of the enriched uranium in the effluent, in March 1990, Utic announced plans to decommission the Montville facility and terminate their license. UtiC-Montville submitted a plan for decommissioning the facility on June 1, 1990. One part of this plan specifically addressed the decommissioning of the formerly used septic leach field. The final revision of the septic leach field decommissioning plan was submitted on May 22, 1992. The site also contains numerous buildings. These are being decommissioned in accordance with the June 10, 1991 decommissioning plan.

f4ature and Extent of Contamination The septic leach field consisted of two parts. Septic field I consisted of 43 4-inch diameter perforated pipes of varying lengths, arranged in parallel 2.5 feet wide by 2.5 feet deep stone-filled trenches, each separated by 5.5 feet of clean soil and buried 3 to 8 feet below the soil surface. Septic field 2 consisted of 2 groups of 6 six-foot diameter perforated concrete drywells spaced in a polygonal pattern approximately 40 feet apart and each surrounded by 2 feet of crushed rock. The size and orientation of septic leach field 1 is illustrated in Figure 1 and septic leach field 2 in Figure 2. Gross alpha concentrations averaged >100 pCi/g for samples of the fine-grained material between the stones in the trenches in septic field 1. When averaged over the mass of the stones as well as the fine grained material between the stones, this activity concentration was about 38 pCi/g. Ingrowth of decay products was n:t significant due to their virtual absence in the original enriched uranium and the limited amount of time since discharge.

1-1

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . - .._ ___~

Decommissionina Criteria .

The major regulatory criteria applied to cleanup of the septic leach field included the following:

1. Option 1 Concentration Criteria from the 1981 NRC' Branch Technical Position (BTP) on Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past Operations (46 TR 52061; October 23, 1981) -

30 pCi/g for enriched uranium.

2. The dose via the groundwater-drinking water pathway was limited to a

! maximus, of 2.3 millirem /yr Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE),

consistent with the dose basis for Option 1 concentrations for enriched uranium in NRC's 1981 BTP (in lieu of EPA's proposed drinking water standard of 4 millirem /yr EDE or limit of 20 pg/l for uranium (30 pCi/1)).

UNC proposed a value of $25,000 per person-rem averted be used in calculations to show that residual contamination would be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), if above the Option 1 concentrations. UNC concluded,-however, that ,

1 the Option 1 criterion in the 1981 BTP would be applied to the site.

Therefore, no additional effort was necessary to reduce contamination l 1evels below the Option 1 criterion.

Decommissionino Acoroach UNC removed, packaged, and shipped for off-site disposal all distribution and ,

service pipes, distribution boxes, sludges, and drywell cylinders. UNC also +

removed the residua 11y contaminated materials in excess of the decommissioning criteria described below, UNC verified compliance with the cleanup criteria using a biased survey of the leach field with samples taken every 10 m along the centerline of the exposed trenches. Hotspots were identified and surveyed in a manner consistent with the approach described in NVREG/CR-5849, in i determining compliance with the hotspot criteria, the licensee averaged' samples along a single horizontal planar surface and not vertically over the trench depths.

To demonstrate compliance with the groundwater protection criteria, the licensee will use the RESRAD dose assessment computer code to estimate potential doses to hypothetical -future onsite residents, ~who could consume potentially contaminated groundwater. The modeling done in support of the

groundwater pathway assessment assumed-that the total activity in the septic field was distributed over the mass of the septic field (including the clean

! soil between trenches and drywells)'. p 1

L The decommissioning project for the entire leach field cost- approximately -

52,000,000 dollars and was completed in 12 months.

l 1-2

Current Status of Site The licensee has completed decontamination of the septic field to BTP option 1 levels. The licensee has also completed its termination survey for the leach field. NRC's contractor has performed a confirmatory survey, but the results of this survey have not been received.

Lessons Learned The contamination in the leach field existed in a fine-grained matrix between or on the 1.5-inch diameter stone used in the leach field. This raised an issue about whether to allow the stone to constitute part of the mass of the soil samples taken in the field because the interior of the stone was not contaminated. Resolution of this question affected the calculations that translate residual radiological contamination into dose to an potential site resident. In response to the licensee's proposal, NRC decided that the stone should be included in the mass of the sample (thus reducing the concentration of each sample) because it was not reasonable to assume that the fine-textured material would be separated from the stone to any significant degree in reasonable exposure scenarios.

The licensee initially attempted to correlate gross alpha data from the field to uranium concentrations. This did not work because natural background gross-alpha measurements were too variable. In addition, the chemical form of the uranium in the field did not lend itself to the type of gross alpha analytical technique attempted on these samples. Further, the laboratory chosen by the licensee for analysis of soil samples generated gross-alpha values that were consistently lower than measured uranium concentrations, whereas the gross-alpha values should have been greater than uranium concentrations. The licensee expended considerable effort trying to resolve the apparent disparities between the gross-alpha values and the uranium concentrations. Consequently, the licensee wasted time, money, and effort trying to evaluate the adequacy of the septic field decommissioning using gross-alpha analysis. The licensee ultimately selected alternative laboratories and analytical techniques to determine uranium concentrations directly.

Based on this experience, the licensee and NRC learned the following lessons:

• The hotspot criteria in NUREG/CR-5849 are applicable to heterogenous contamination.

. Licensees can complete ALARA analyses in planning decommissioning for various levels of clean-up.

• The adequacy of licensee or contract laboratory Quality Assurance / Quality Control programs for radiological analysis should be confirmed by the licensee, in consultation with NRC, before radiological surveys to ensure that compatible and proper techniques will be used.

1-3

t I

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 i GRID ND 11 10 9 g r-e rar

, wgg p s g #

• r. .r .r . .. . ' ..

. t e e.. . 4 .-s.,.-$.-,.

. 3.- 5.- 5

< e . e e .. .

.e .e e . .,

le M es e gg i i

. .e .e .. . .

.e

.e , f e.i e . I. , e. ,e... , s . , . . . .

i. . . . . . e. i. .

e. . . ..... ..e

e. . .

-(.

... . . e i

i

.i .i . T. .

..v. e..v .. e. . .

g ; ;-.-

• s t e .

.e e e

.. ..e e

. 6 i i

.e e e. .e e

s e e e

.e e

c

~

, , ..e . .

. . e .

. . e.

i i . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . .

tiln tet a t e-4 ., . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

es s e . .

. . . . . .e . i e .e . . . . . . . .

1 etee . . e .e. . . ee .. i .e .a .e. . e . . . e e . . e . e D gggg g.ar -

4 . * . . . .e . . . i . . 6

., .e .. . . e. . e e

.s e . . e . . .

........ e e , e . .

e

. . . . . . < e .a e . e . . . .e .e .

...e .> . . .

i e

.. .e... e e a

.e .e .e . .e .e .e i . . .e

.e. e

.e e i e

. e.

...e .

. e

. . . e. .

e

.e i

i i

e .e.e .e . . .e .

.e e.

C

"*- III A M ' i

. . ... .... ,. <e i . ...............e

. . . . .... e . . . .

. .e.

. . e e e. . . .. .... e.

e i e . . e e. e. e . . .. .... . i . . . . e e e U

. . .e . . . . .e . . e . . i . . . . . ea . . . . . e e e

.e .e .e . . .. . . . e e e . e . .. i . . .e e e . e . . e .e e e . . . . . e f , t .. .O!+ .t  ! .,

...e e e...e .. .e.. e. .e

.!.! . .! .' .! . e! .! .^ ... IIII .I

. .e i .

. . e. e.

.... i i

. e. e .e e . . .. . . e e e . . . . . . A

. . .  :  ::: :, .: ,: e. i.a  :

e i i. i

. . ... . . . . . . . . e. s.. . . i .e i

e. a, a. i, , , , . , . . ,

L ~-

i.M ' ~' e' l .i. i . i.i.i.J A*1

.s w . n a se m m = n u m a n n e. a. es e n ee ei n e. a .. . .s e ns w ei e o e e e s . 3 e i tot eac .e SCALC rs' ,,,

2*'**"X25.,. fACllJTlfS ThCIhr(RihC

--  :-..e...., sorw niu , i  ;

.a u . . .. ,< .

(]D. .

e senir ,,.r.c i . i figure 1. Size and Orientation of Septic Leach Field I l-4

. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ = . _ _ _ - ._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ _

6 iss to sLon. e p tspiac TANK

' ~

ijalistait<iiii, '..!.!.l.

i.

Pav

....... ..e.s i!..

N. .

. . e? .? t ' t ! ?

s

. .. ., .a we.st. t.i .s o....

[f-

=  :  ::g....... . . !. ...g..  !. !. !. !. '. . . : :pmottas  :'.1

.- .g i; l. . .

11; 6 . ttit,*

ston. g i* : t't ,,

!.!!!!!t*.

.. .'.......... ,..... . .... PoNO

.... ..w.. . . oint. .....

cs .

j.- .

.. t

.... ....e.e... t.o e. ,

' L=

! ..  !. .P a. y s.o. : '.i.t.t.l.:.l.*.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.

., ......., . . , . , . , . , . , . , . , 2. ,, ..,, .,. ,. n. .., .. ., . ,...,...,.,.,.,.,y..

. .. .s,.

g i. l l i. ; . 4 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

.. l i i i i ..

i.l i .i i i i i i i. i. i i :

a s,. -

. 40' ,' .

i:  :

/.,, s f/ .....

SCALE '

% 75' 0* M p

=an aenm t. .t,em .

Figure 2. Size and Orientation of Septic Leach Field 2 1-5

_ _ _ = _

4 Kerr-McGee, Cimarron Plants Crescent, Oklahoma Decommissionina issues

• Technical basis for allowing on-site burials of uranium contaminated soils

• Approach to termination of multiple licenses

• Appropriate time period for dose calculations facildtv Description Kerr-McGee coerated two fuel f abrication plants, one for mixed-oxide fuels and one for low-enriched uranium fuels, near Crescent, Oklahoma. The 1100-acre site is located in-a rural part of central Oklahoma, 30 miles north of Oklahoma City, in a farming area. The Cimarron site is listed in the NRC's Site Decommissioning Management Plan.

In addition to the two fuel fabrication plants on the site, the licensee operated several waste-water treatment settling ponds and a burial area (for burials previously allowed under 10 CFR 20.304), which were licensed as part of the uranium plant. Both buildings were contaminated with uranium and plutonium. The settling ponds are contaminated with uranium, while the burial areas (two additional areas recently discovered) contain uranium and trace amounts of thorium from waste disposals associated with offsite activities.

Fuelfabricationoperationsatbothplantswereterminatedinlp75. Major contaminated plant (-60,000 ftfacij)ities include

, 3 waste-water the plutonium treatment plant (-26,000 settling ponds, and wasteft burial

), the uraniu areas. There were also five previous waste water treatment ponds; these ponds were closed in 1977 and 1978.

Nature and Extent of Contamination Decontamination of the mixed oxide facility began in 1979, and in 1989, an NRC contractor completed a confirmatory survey that demonstrated that this facility met decommissioning guidelines. No plutonium contamination has been identified outside-of the mixed oxide building. The yard outside this facility is contaminated with small concentrations of uranium from the nearby uranium plant. Cimarron Corporation submitted a request for' license termination for this facility in August 1990, followed by a request in November 1990 to allow renovations in order to facilitate non-nuclear operations, which NRC approved.

The soil around the uranium plant and the uranium plant building are contaminated with low-enriched uranium (ranging from 2 to 9.1 percent S U).

Soil in the settling ponds and the burial-grounds are also contaminated with uranium with concentrations generally in the range of 30 to 100 pCi/g of about-2-1

1.3 percent average enrichment. Although a known burial area was exhumed and resulting wastes shipped of f site for disposal, other apparent 10 CFR 20.304 burials exist at the site, in addition, elevated uranium concentrations were documented in samples taken during the closure of the five former waste water ponds at the site. The waste-water treatment lagoons also contain chemical contamination (primarily nitrate contamination (NO3 )). Groundwater in one area of the site is also contaminated with uranium and non-radiological constituents (e.g. , NO3 ).

About 400,000 ft3 of soil contaminated with enriched uranium with concentrations averaging 70 pCi/g in the top I to 2 feet of the ground surrounding the processing buildings. Samples from the closed ponds indicated that appreciable portions of the bottoms of two ponds consisted of contaminated soils in the range of 300 to 400 pCi/g uranium prior to tilling, which occurred at the time of closure of the ponds. Consequently, concentrations of uranium in the bottom sediments would now be expected to be lower due to mixing of the contaminated material with clean sediments during tilling.

Decommissionina Criteria The major regulatory criteria applied during decommissioning include the following:

1. Guidelines for Decontamination of facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material, July 1982 (An Enclosure to Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23)

2. Acceptable Soil Contamination Levels, Enclosure 3 to Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23, November 4, 1983

3. Option 2 Concentration Criteria from the 1981 NRC Branch Technical Position (BTP) on Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past Operations (46 FP 52061; October 23, 1981) -- for enriched uranium, the criterion is 100 pCi/g (soluble), 250 pCi/g (insoluble)

The first group of criteria defined acceptable surface contamination levels on building surfaces; the second group of criteria were applied to the soils surrounding the buildings. The soil criteria were consistent with the criteria in the 1981 BTP and included a value of 25 pCi/g for total plutonium.

The BTP was applied to a proposed onsite burial of soil contaminated with uranium in accordance with 10 CFR 20.302.

Decommissionina ADoroach Kerr-McGee has finished decontaminating the plutonium plant under an NRC-approved decommissioning plan. At the uranium plant, Kerr-McGee has excavated and shipped for disposal the contents of the initially-identified burial area and has continued decontaminating the building. The licensee has surveyed the soil around the building to detect uranium contamination and submitted a 2-2

o requestfopauthorization(pursuantto10CFR20.302)todisposeof 400,000 ft of uranium-contaminated soil onsite under Option 2 of the 1981 BTP. Staff has estimated that an on-site disposal would reduce decommissioning costs by $10 million or more due to the avoidance of costs for -

disposing of the contaminated soil offsite. The proposed burial also has the advar.tage of reducing radiation exposure to remediation workers. The licensee's evaluation of the potential for future groundwate contamination beneath the site concluded that it was unlikely for any uranium to reach groundwater in a well located immediately adjacent to the burial area within 1000 years due primarily to the retardation of the uranium by the bedrock at the site.

Current Status

. NRC termination of the license for the mixed oxide facility is pending

. Termination of the license for the uranium fuel facility is dependent upon proper completion of the following steps:

- Adequate site characterization <

- Authorization of onsite disposal in accordance with 10 CFR 20.302

- Decontamination of the building and adjacent soils in accordance with existing criteria Lessons learned

. Limited characterization of the extent and distribution of contaminated material at the site complicated decommissioning

. Prudent measures to reduce the likelihood of human exposure to the contamination and other prescribed conditions on disposal of contaminated soil may be perceived as being inconsistent with the

" unrestricted use" standard for decommissioning 2-3

i

l Northern States Power

! Pathfinder Atomic Power Supply l Sioux Falls, South Dakota Decommissionina Issues j

• Technical basis for the release of residual contamination on -

j building surfaces containing gamma-emitting radionuclides t

J

• Advantages and disadvantages of phased decommissioning approaches Facility Descriotion f

i The Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant was a 66 Megawatt-electric (-200 Megawatt-

! thermal) boiling water reactor operated by Northern States Power (NSP) on a l

site 5.5 miles northeast of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The plant ceased j operations in September 1967. The fuel was removed from the site and the j facility was placed .in a Safe Storage (SAFSTOR) condition in 1971. At that j time,NSPdecontaminatedportionsofthefacilitybyreducipgsurfaceactivity 1

and filling the reactor vessel with gravel. About 3,000 ft (400 drums) of radioactive waste were generated in this decontamination effort and shipped l

offsite for disposal. NSP stored contaminated equipment and piping that was

too large to be drummed in the reactor building and spent fuel pool. As a part of the SAFSTOR program, contaminated equipment and material was i

! transferred to a byproduct materials license in August 1972 and the operating j reactor license was terminated. NSP installed non-nuclear boilers in the j facility and continued to generate electricity until the present using the i plant's turbine generator.

\

Nature and Extent of Contamination

! Because of Pathfinder's limited operating history (e.g., about 80 days) and lack of any identifiable nuclear fuel leahs during operation, radioactive l contamination levels were relatively low and"causg only by neutrjn i

activation. The primary radionuclides were Co, Ni, and gFe; Co dominated in terms of radiological significance. Total activity prior to removal of the reactor pressure vessel was about 563 Curie.s (C1), all but 0.044 Ci of which was contained in the pressure vessel and jts internal hardware.

i Decommissioning generated about 34,450 ft of waste containing essentially all i of the 563 Ci. Figure 1 depicts a cross-section of the reactor and fuel handling buildings. Figures 2 and 3 depict the extent of surface contamination within the rea: tor and fuel handling buildings, respectively.

l

Decommissionina Criteria The criteria used for unrestricted release of the reactor building and fuel

, handling building were the acceptable surface contamination levels stated in

. Table 1 of Roguintory Guide 1.86, Ternination of Operating Licenses for

, Nuclear Reactors. The NRC applied an additional criterion that gamma exposure ,

l l 3-1 i  !

3 I

d y--.*.~m---_ w y. 4n_.w- 4,. ..%-rw...%-.y,_.,--.r-p-,.m ,m.wr,,_._,,,,-.6 , - - ..,,.,,,,.,--,,,,,-.,.-vce --,,.,--,uw,,,,,,m-,.r. m,~.. p

rates measured one meter from the building surfaces shall not exceed 5 #R/hr above background.

Decommissionino Acoroach NSP initiated final dismantlement and decontamination activity in the late 1980s. In 1990, NSP removed and shipped the reactor vessel intact along with other waste to the low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Richland, Washington by rail and truck. Dismantlement also included partial demolition ,

of the reactor building (the lower portion of the concrete containment structure will be buried in place) and decontamination of portions of the fuel handling building. The project caused a total estimated exposure to workers of about 4 person-rem and required about one year to complete. Total cost of the decommissioning action was about $13 million.

NSP set action levels for contamination below the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.86 during the radiological survey. Any scan exceeding the criteria triggered additional direct contamination measurements. Those areas exceeding the criteria were decontaminated and resurveyed. Final survey of the site showed that nearly all the areas were remediated to levels less than the "best estimate" of local background radiation.

Some contamination remains in the turbines that are aill being used to generate electricity at the plant in conjunction with the non-nuclear boilers.

This contaminated equipment will remain at the site under the control of the licensee until it has been properly removed and disposed of or decays below acceptable contamination criteria.

Current Status

• NRC approved release of the Reactor Buildit.9, Fuel Handling Build hg, and Waste Storage Building for unrestricted use in November 1992 Lessons learned

! + Remediation and measurement technology for surface contamination is readily available and implementable 1

i 3-2

I 1

' A

~~c I

^ ^

! m L J CutLDINs } }

T T cArx (l:::3 CRME PER$cNNEL REACTOR  % &lA LCCK INIELD J A root ,---

CONCG TRATED 1 ' ~ "

, ,' GRA LEY vArit stonAst p

= 37 A (run. Po0L cu .

C g- - == V!

l .= .-

Vn . n 2, ---

g RE

,Chp,0N g- 'y -

REA Ton I

N o(

run """" **'

I '

IJ.p,u1p_.

(cArxrom.

i 1

- all Iqi a j rua rmira em y, s./ l p:

______I___*_I_y SI _

run. MacLins su!LD D s REACTOR CONTAINWENT su1LDINs Figure 1. Cross-Section of the Reactor and Fuel Handling Buildings (Ref:

Pathfinder Plant Decommissioning Plan, Northern States Power, 1989) 3-3

l 4 . l l

4

~

f 7 i

• 4

! REACTOR CONTAINW D T BUILDING VDTIU.UON.EXMAUTT .CgA I-

% nEACTOR CONTAINW D T BUILDING VDTILAMON INTAA i .D l

l l

T IICLDEICAL Q

SHIELD WALL i

j 7 -f'UD. g STER i

-f e.1o.eco C,, i O PACxAsE nAnwasTE onw !

l 5.0 % o 100 CPW .s

.0 e 0, . ,

nEactoR 01.s @ -

VE3 fD. .

(

t

! @100CPW .HEAn.

i 00.3 A

C"*"irgEss i

l $150 CP rGLANO SE l --

@ So0 STER PUWP5 I

- 0.1 LE8DD

@ SMEAA LOCAn*N FOR RDdOVASLE SURFACE

CONTAJ14AncH ANALYSIS ( Aa LOCATIONS

. coo ese/ loo sea untss sHDVN OmDtvist.)

! 1 Y RA3tATION LEVEL IM ar/h.

t 1

Figure 2. Contamination survey of the Reactor Building at the Equipment Floor

, Level (Ref: Pathfinder Plant Decommissioning Plan, Northern States Power,1989) 3-4 i

CFT CA! Cal #AC550A lllllIIllll ll s_

IIIA'C i RESIN I

1. CONCD TRATO "

WAITESgDRAGE 3 2 .un 9

' '"^

?"J"E ruw'" ,, s,.T run.

,. ra;'ga

-.. .un .

y, g 'ad' JHua

' i

"^'"!a"a?^"*

i leia 0

" M '" 7 00 a t= cm _

meALun PREFILT D5 O

p

'ovgp 2o. .un t-

,5 I i OoO V ', ' O o JD G w . l.r = l.--u.

u Ak An0N Tfis ALL La T S x.x lio"uM'Mivit'a"s'A.'""" '*" '

Figure 3. Contamination s:!rvey of the Fuel Handling Building at the Basement Level (Ref: Pathfinder Plant Deco m issioning Plan, Northern States Power,1989) 3-5

GTE/Sylvania Manchester, New Hampshire Decommissionina Issues

+ Long-term reliance on institutional controls for limiting exposure to residual radioactive materials 1

Facility Description

> GTE/Sylvania was licensec by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1965 to use thorium dioxide in coating electrodes for high-intensity light bulbs. These operations were conducted at a manufacturing plant in an industrial area in Manchester, New Hampshire. The thorium was suspended in methanol and vacuum-

' deposited on the electrodes, which were then cleaned and fired at high '

l temperatures to fuse the coating into a ceramic solid. The electrodes were I

then encapsulated in gas-tight, fused, silica capsules. GTE/Sylvania continued this process until February 1986, when the facility initiated decommissioning of the thorium operation. The site was licensed by the State of New Hampshire from 1966 until the license was terminated at the conclusion of decommissioning in July 1991.

Nature and Extent of Contamination mmissioning, contamination consisted of processed thorium oxide Prior to decgzaTh, dust (z32 Th. and some decay products) distributed throughout three rooms (light room, chemistry laboratory, and high temperature furnace room (with two high temperature furnat.es)). Other contaminated areas included soil beneath a waste storage area, an underground settling tank, and electrical cables and

' five conduits inside an underground electrical vault. The settling tank was 7.5 feet high with a diameter of about 8 feet and contained about 1 foot of thorium sludge in the bottom. The electrical vault was 5 x 5 x 8 feet and contained about 1.5 feet of thorium sludge on the bottom. Contamination in the settling tank and electrical vault was discovered late in the process of decommissioning; contamination within the electrical vault was not anticipated because it was not involved in the processing or application of the thorium.

About 600 millicuries of thorium was removed during decommissioning; 3

the decommissioning project generated a total of about 3800 ft of low-level radioactive waste, which was sent offsite to a licensed low-level waste disposal facility. Contamination on the surface of the electrical cables three feet underground feeding the electrical vault wap about 22,000 disintegrations per minute (dpm) beta-gamma per 100 cm . After covering with plastictocontainanyremovablecpntamination,thesurfaceactivitywas lowered to about 14,000 dpm/100 cm . The conduit entrances measured up to 9600 dpm direct beta-gamma /100 cm 2

Soils ber.eath the waste storage area are contaminated with thorium up to 500 pCi/g.

4-1

Qgg mmissionino Criteria The major regulatory criteria applied to cleanup of the GTE/Sylvania included the following:

1. Acceptable surf ace contamination levels from New Hampshire's 2

" Permissible Levels of Surfpce Contamination" of 170 dpm/100 cm (average fixed) contamination, and (removable),

2450 dpm/100 cm85p (dpm/100 cmmaximum fixed) surface contamination.

2. Option 4 Concentration Criteria from the 1981 NRC Branch Technical Position (STF) on Disposal or OnSite Storage of Ihorium or Urantum Rastes from Past Operations (46 FR 52061; October 23, 1981) -

500 pCi/g for natural thorium.

Decommissionino Acoroach When decommissioning of this site began in June 1986, it was expected to be a routine, short-term project. The original goal of the project was to release the site for unrestricted use (i.e., remove and dispose of all thorium contamination to release the site without restriction because of the presence of radioactive material). Decommissioning was significantly complicated, however, by the discovery of the contaminated settlement tank and electrical vault and by proposed reliance on institutional controls to restrict long-term access to contaminated soil beneath the waste storage area. Most of the excavation and radiological survey work was completed by April 1988. The '

license for the facility was terminated in July 1991.

Decommissioning activities included the following: a detailed characterization survey; removal and packaging of contaminated equipment; dismantling and packaging of entire section of the plant (two chemistry labs, a hallway, two exterior walls, and roof); removal of High Efficiency Particulate (HEPA) filter; cleanup of the surf ace of the waste storage area; removal of over 100 feet of contaminated pipe; decontamination of the settling tank and electrical vault; decontamination of two high temperature furnaces; soil sampling; entombment of contaminated soil; shipping all waste to low-level radioactive waste disposal facility; final termination survey; and amendment of property deed placing restrictions on long-term use of the contaminated waste storage area.

The licensee stabilized the contaminated soil in place, posted area markers warning of the radioactive contamination, and placed restrictions in the deed rather than to excavate and dispose of the thorium-contaminated soil in the waste storage area and adjacent to the settling tank. A portion of the contaminated land extends beneath the floor of a machine shop. The licensee argued that removal of the contaminated tank and adjacent soils would have been nearly impossible and would have required the demolition of a load-bearing wall and foundation slab. Such demolition and associated waste disposal would have been prohibitively expensive for the licensee. In response to a technical assistance request from the State of New Hampshire, NRC reviewed the proposal to stabilize the soil in situ. Although NRC indicated that it would be more protective and, in the long run, more 4-2 1

l l

l economical to remove the contaminated soils during decommissioning, NRC l indicated that in situ disposal of the thorium-contaminated soils would be I acceptable under existing NRC guidance. NRC's 1981 Branch Technical Position (BTP) on Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past Operations (46 FR 52061; OcCober 23, 1981) allowed disposal of contaminated soils under Option 4 up to 500 pCi/g for natural thorium with appropriate deed restrictions in areas zoned for industrial use only.

Consistent with Option 4 of the 1981 BTP, the licensee amended the deed to prohibit (1) excavation below I foot without prior approval and (2) construction or occupation of residential or industrial structures or for agricultural purposes. Thepestrictedareahasasurfaceareaof approximately 1.3 million ft and includes (1) contaminated subsurface soils outside the building in the waste storage area, (2) contaminated subsurface soils surrounding the buried settling tank, and (3) contaminated electrical cables and conduits in the buried electrical vault. The licensee estimated a worst case annual dose to an inadvertent intruder of about 770 millirem whole body dose above background in the event the person disregarded the area markers and deed restrictions and occupied the site of the contaminated soil for about 19 hours2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br /> per day.

Current Status

• The State of New Hampshire terminated the license for the site on July 30,1991 Lessons learnad'

• Non-radiological hazards (high voltage) and excavation impacts sometimes may preclude decontamination efforts

• The decommissioning process was hampered by a lack of specific guidance and regulations for acceptable soil contamination limits

• Smaller Agreement State programs may not have sufficient technical expertise to regulate complicated decommissioning projects 232

• Use of surrogate radionuclide (22 sac for Th) in situations where secular equilibrium does not exist needs to be validated on a site-specific basis

' Based on " Decontamination and Decommissioning of Thorium Dioxide Manuf acturing Plant," Dennis P. O'Dowd, New Hampshire Department of Public Health Services, Presentation to the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Annual Conference, May 1988.

4-3

i Radium Chemical Company' Woodside, New York l '

4 j' Decommissionino Issues l

• Radon exposures associated with residual radioactive material I

• Disposal of low activity waste from decommissioning in sanitary

landfills i

Facility Descriotion

/

The Radium Chemical Company site consists of a one-story brick building located in a light industrial section of Woodside, Queens County, New Y,ork.

The Radium Chemical Company (RCC) produced luminous paint cpptaining Ra

beginning in 1913 and later manufactured, leased, and sold Ra sources to

hospitals, medical centers, and research laboratories. The radium sources were stored on-site in lead containers in a poured concrete vault. Following closure of operations in 1983, RCC abandoned the building leaving behind l

radium sources, contaminated containers and labware, along with building and

! soil contamination. From 1988 to 1989, EPA undertook limited emergency

' removal actions under Superfund to secure the facility and remove radioactive sources.

! The site was added to the National Priorities List for remediation under l Superfund based on a health advisory issued by the Agency for Toxic Substances

! and Disease Registry in November 1989. The primary current radiological l concern involves radium-contaminated building surfaces and components, hazardous wastes, and soil. -Present and future potential exposures are

' primarily associated with direct gamma exposure and exposure via ingestion / inhalation within the facility.

Nature and Extent of Contamination h

The one-apre site houses a one-story , brick building with a floor area of t 10,000 ft . RCC leased about 7220 ft of the building. A detailed survey

indicated 19 hotspots with elevated dose rate readings, including 15 hotspots in the source vault. A hotspot is defined in this project as an area that t

measures more than:

j (1) 10 millirem /hr at a distance of I cm from the surface, 2

j (2) 100,000 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per 100 cm of removable '

' alpha contamination, or I (3) 250,000 dpm per 100 cm2 removable beta contamination.

The highest hotspot inside the source vault measures 200 millirem /hr at 1 cm.

! Thpmaximumsurfacecontaminationwithinthesourcevaultwas 847,000 dpm/100 i- cm of removable beta contamination. Thehighegtremovablebetacontamination outside the source vault was 483,000 dpm/100 cm .

5-1 4

n- .- - .-: . . . - , - - = - ,

Decommissionino Criteria The objective of the remediation is to reduce contamination to a level that will permit-release of the site for unrestricted use without generating an excessive amount of radium waste in-the process. The criteria to be applied-in this remediation include the following:

(1) EPA's 5 pCi 226 Ra/g standard for contaminated soils and materials-(based on EPA standards for uranium mill tailings cleanup in 40 CFR Part 192),

(2) EPA's 4 pC1/1 action level for 222 Rn in indoor air, ,

(3) Gamma exposure rate no greater than 20 pR/hr above background (based-on 40 CFR Part 192 and EPA guidance), and (4) Acceptable surface contamination levels from NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.86 for removable, and maximum and average surface activity.

Decommissionino Acoroach EPA considered 4 alternative remedies to cleanup the contamination at the RCC site, including:- (1) no action, (2) total decontamination of the facility (e.g., building surfaces, underground piping, sewer lines,- and soil) and disposal of radioactive waste offsite, (3) complete dismantling and removal of the contaminated material and its disposal at a radioactive waste disposal' facility, and (4) partial decontamination and dismantling of the facility.

EPA selected Alternative 4 with the objective of' releasing the site for

^

unrestricted use. This alternative provides-the-best balance of time for completion, volume of contaminated waste, risk to workers, state and public acceptance, and cost.

EPA cp',n, ducted partial decontamination by first removing hot spots contaminated with Ratoreduceworkerexposure-andthegiskofspreadingcontamination during dismantling. Building masonry with Ra concentrations less than 5 pCi/g was disposed of in a sanitary landfill to reduce the volume and cost 1

of waste disposal:in a radioactive waste disposal facility. Although the New York State Department of Labor prohibits disposal of wastes containing more than 0.1 pCi/g 226 Ra in a sanitary 1andfill or as in situ soil,'the agency-agreed to waive the requirement due to the technical difficulty-in achieving this level because of background levels and-the-substantial increase in cost-associated with disposal of such wastes at licensed disposal facilities.

EPA then dismantled and removed contaminated' material, in- sequence, from (1) the building interior; (2) roof, windows, and-doors; and (3) residual masonry.

! Contaminated soil above the criter' was excavated and shipped to the

! Envirocare facility in Tcaele County, Utah,- or acceptable alternative facility. The projected cost to remediate the site was 5'.8,699,000 and required morc than two years to complete.

5-?

l l

L

i. .

1

(

l' Current Status of Site i

! Decontamination and dismantlement of the site is essentially complete. EPA is currently investigating contamination of a< sewer line at the site and.

assessing the asscciated extent of contamination and risk. If the risk is

excessive and removal can be justified EPA may excavate the sewer line and j any associated-contamination soil and dispose of it consistent with the l

criteria used in the_ rest of the project.- EPA may also consider applying -

l supplemental standards in evaluating the contaminated sewer line.

Lessons Learned l

• It was difficult to identify and select ap)ropriate cleanup criteria for the site that satisfied all parties; tie delays caused by this

[

difficulty significantly complicated conduct of the remedial action t

i . Selection of cleanup criteria was complicated by the fact that the i lifetime cancer risk from background radiation at the site (in excess of 10'3) exceeded EPA's, acceptablg risk range in- the Superfund Program (10 to 10' , with 10' as the point of departure)

• Selection of cleanup criteria was complicated because a suitable l methodology did not exist for translating acceptable cleanup criteria for-groundwater contamination to soil concentrations i . -

• NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86 has only limited applicability in the i remediation because-it applies to surface contamination only and its i values were not determined on a consistent dose or risk basis-I f

l-i=

k i~

i  :

i I

5-3 l

l

H i

l BOMARC Missile Accident Site McQuire Air Force Base l

~

Ocean County, New Jersey l Decommissionino issues

• Dependence of preferred remedial action on the availability of affordable waste disposal capacity

• Relationship between the volume 'of contamination and the cost of the decommissioning action

+ Viability of long-term institutional controls to restrict access to contaminated materials 4

Facility Description Boeing Michigan Aeronautical Research Center (B0 MARC) Missile- Site was an active defensive nuclear missile installation from 1958 until 1972. The 4 facility housed missiles equipped with nuclear warheads on a 218 acre . site -in south-central New Jersey about 18 miles southeast of Trenton (see Figure 1).

On June 7, 1960, a fire occurred in one of the onsite shelters housing a missile. The shelter, missile, missile launcher, and warhead were partially consumed by fire. Weapons grade plutonium (WGP) from the nuclear warhead was dispersed to soils and structures in the immediate-vicinity of the missile shelter. The material was dispersed by the fire itself as well as the 30,000 gallons of water applied to control the fire for approximately 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />. The-4 Air Force reports that no more than 300 grams of WGP was unaccounted for at the time of the accident. Soon after the accident the Air Force fixed the residual contamination in place by applying fixative paint, concrete, and asphalt over the contaminated areas, including _the drainage ditch inat conducted contaminated runoff during the accident,

! The site is being cleaned up by the Air Force under the Installation Restoration Program Element of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is monitoring cleanup activities at-the site in a manner similar to a Superfund site cleanup. The Air Forco signed a Record of Decision selecting the preferred remedial action in November 1992.

I Nature and Extent of Contamination No concentrations of radionuclides attributable to the missile accident were detected in goundwatgr, surface water, or air at the site. The contaminants of concern ( Pu and 'Am) have been detected in numerous radiological surveys in site soils, sgdimen(s,, missingmissile launcher, and structural materials at the site. Po, Pu, and Pu will also~be present, but at less significant concentrations. The contamination in the soil appears to be limited to the uppermost foot of soil and is concentrated in discrete " hot spots." The soil contamination does not-appear to have migrated vertically 6-1

Surface activity surveys downward more than a few inches since the accident.

of the missile shelter andutilitybunkepsindicatedalphasurfaceactivities up to 80,000 counts per minute per 100 cm . Cores through the concrete floor of the missile shelter indicate plu} onium levels within the concrete as high as 65 pCi/ sample. About 208,000 ft of contaminated soil ar.d material is estimated to be above the applicable cleanup criteria, although additional material may be discovered during the course of excavation and remediation (see Figure 2). For example, the missing missile launcher and shelter doors may have been disposed of onsite and would likely be removed during remediation.

Decommissionino Criteria The Air Force developed a site-specific cleanup standard for Pu in soil The assuming that people may live op"the site at some time in the future.

Pu was calculated using the computer code cleanup standard of 8 pCi/g of RESRAD based upon a lifetime risk objective of 10 cancer risk consistent with current EPA guidance for the Superfund program. The Air Force also proposes to apply the criteria for acceptable surface activity from NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.86 for remediation of the missile shelter, utility bunker, and other structures contaminated on their exterior surfaces. For alpha 2

contamination, 2these criteria would be <20 dpm/100 cm removable 2 activity,

<300 dpm/100 cm maximum fixed activity, and <100 dpm/100 cm average fixed activity.

Decommissionina Approach The Air Force considered five alternative remedial actions for the contamination: (1) unrestricted access, (2) institutional control, (3) institutional control with removal of specific materials (e.g., missile launcher), (3) onsite treatment of soils and structures and disposed of contaminated material off site in a radioactive waste disposal facility, and (5) removal of all contaminated material above criteria for offsite disposal at a radioactive waste disposal facility. The Air Force selected Alternative

1. 5 (Offsite disposal) because it was cost-effective, permanent, and environmentally preferred. This alternative includes

• Excavation of contaminated soils containing greater than 8 pCi/g of Pu

• Excavation and sectioning of contaminated portions of the concrete apron, utility bunkers, and missile shelter

• Excavation and removal (if found) of the missile launcher

• Containerization, transport, and disposal of contaminated materials in an off-site radioactive waste disposal facility operated by the Department of Energy (00E)

• Restoration of the site by backfilling with clean fill, grading, and revegetation.

6-2

? .

The cost of the preferred remedial action is 57 million if disposal is allowed at a 00E disposal facility; commercial disposal would increase the cost to at least 524 million.

The Air Force's selection of the preferred alternative is contingent on its cost-effectiveness. If it becomes no longer cost-effective, the Air Force j

proposes to retain institutional control over the contaminated area, thereby eliminating the only significant route of exposure. This alternative includes monitoring, maintenance, and access control actions currently being conducted at the site.

Current Status of Site The Air Force is presently continuing to monitor the site and restrict access to contaminated portions awaiting resolution of the issues associated with waste disposal, lessons learned

. Limited availability of disposal capacity for low-level radioactive waste after January 1,1993 and lack of DOE consent to accept waste 4

for disposal has delayed initiation of the remedial action

. Multiple regulatory reviews by government agencies and the public resulted in late-stage comments that could not reasonably be resolved without delaying the project

• Lack of acceptable cleanup criteria for plutonium delayed progress in remediation until the Air Force developed and negotiated a criterion with State and Federal agencies a The State disagreed with the Federal agencies (Air Force and EPA) on

' acceptable risk basis 4for developing the cleanup criterion for Pu; the State preferred 10 ,

while the Federal agencies preferred a cleanup standard based on 10 lifetime risk. Another group, the Pinelands Commission, asserts that the cleanup criterion should be background, unless the Air Force can demonstrate no adverse impacts on surface water or groundwater quality l

6-3 l

i l

l I

i

)

d NEW YORK y J

NEW JERSEY j e

NEWARKe i

• NEW YORK i

PENNSYLVANIA eTRENTON .

80MARO MISSt(! Stig FORT OtX MILITARY RESERVATION UNJ ST N AV AL

' i PHtLADELPHIA * <.-

,,,f;1. ,' 7% g 's (,

AIR STATlON

~

'i,$.h

,r%. .

~

lj $ . ., t e * - T

[

uJ 7' p%

O 'J , 2 4 O

'*

• T1C

• w9 ;,- CITY 0 10 20 3--. SCALE IN MILES ij'(go n;,- '

i5m i

\

Source. Battene.1988.

Figure 1. Location of the 80 MARC Missile Site (

Reference:

Record of Decision: B0 MARC Missile Accident Site, McQuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, U.S. Air Force, November 1992, pg. 15) 6-4

4 i

r A

(

1a cg (i x 4.

a

,o ia ,'

I

)

{ .m i t

\

\

N- 1 1 oolce]9 2 3 11_.

(

• f o

[ '

y c - - - '

%l,, l = fCf -

j f< c. .m

~ ~

• gO */.

( :m a l- -l I a 4 4

y f t _.:. _ ..

a- '

., ic 3 ji ii

.a - -

I i

~ ' '

' .. - r,'L- (

y "WN .. - .:: -y

.. ,y' w-,; il Q ' l

k. ~_- .. ,

v ,

N' .,}j Q {.b, , ..

b,pl......- U j

.u.. < . . . ........&.i n

l. ,

',. p) '.,

,f ,5

..4 A

. ./

N., a *!'

{

. ' -. , ,. . . . . . 7. . . . . . I i

-..- I

' aue

., c ..m

.. . . . . . ~ - ,

(} f'tiremeG ange Figure 2. Extent of Radiological Contamination at the BOMARC Site

(

Reference:

.Rccord of Decision: B0HARC Missile Accident Site, McQuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, U.S. Air Force, November 1992, pg. 32) 6-5

Enclosure E INTERNATIONAL DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES i

Activities related to radiological criteria for decommissioning are occurring

, both in other countries and in international forums such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In general, the current practice is to derive i decommissioning criteria on a case-by-case basis, usually using the guidance

! of the I AEA Safety Series No. 89, " Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from Regulatory Control." The IAEA guidance is risk-based and uses exposure to natural background as a reference level. It concludes that the level of trivial individual effective dose equivalent would

! be on the order of some 10's of Sv (a few mrem) per year, however in

consideration of multiple sources of exposure the recommendation is 10 Sv {1 mrem) in a year from each exempt practice. This' assumes the practice selected is considered optimal i.e., As low As is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). A practice is assumed to be optimal if the estimated collective dose is less

< than 1 person-Sievert /y (100 person-rem /y). The IAEA's examples of practices

did not include the unrestricted use of lands and structures af ter decommissioning but did include consumer products, waste, and recycle--reuse of materials.

During November 1990, the IAEA convened a group of consultants to develop a j draft Technical Report entitled, " Criteria for Unrestricted Release of 4

Facilities, sites or Materials from Decommissioning." That work is on hold pending the completion of the technical basis and methodology being developed

for the publication of NUREG/CR-5512, " Residual Radioactive Contamination From Decommissioning

Technical Basis for Translating Contamination levels to Annual Dose." Separate IAEA consultants and advisory group meetings in November 1991 and June 1992, and produced a draft document, " National Policies

and Regulations for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities." This latter document is still early in its development and will require further work before it is suitable for distribution as a draft. Another consultants meeting was held in Vienna, Austria in December 1992 to work on'the draft.

In a related area, there has been a recent focus upon waste disposal and i

recycle at the IAEA. The criterion is typically set at 10 Sv [1 mrem) per year based on the IAEA Safety Series No. 89 guidance. This work relates to

, decommissioning criteria to the extent thatLmaterials left on site after decommissioning, at some subsequent time, may be freely disposed or recycled l or reused without restriction. An IAEA advisory group, in which the NRC is l participating, is currently developing a draft document, " Exemption From Regulatory Control Recommended Unconditional Exempt levels For Solid i Radioactive Materials." This document is also in an early stage of development and is not ripe for general distribution as a draft.

I Residual contamination limits for decommissioning have been developed in i several European countries based on the guidance in IAEA Safety Series No. 89.

The most extensive information in the literature is on decommissioning in the '

, Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) where residual contamination limits have 1

m - - , - - - .

l j

been incorporated into radiation protection ordinances. However, these 'l f ordinances are treated more as guidance to be applied, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis rather than as regulations, in the FRG approximately 28%

of the electrical power is generated by 20 operating nuclear power plants.

1 Thirteen prototype nuclear power plants have been shut down and are in various- i stages of decommissioning. In addition several research reactors-have been-  ;

taken out of service. Estimates of total decommissioning wastes from all i

! nuclear installations in FRG before unification range from 90,000 to 120,000 i

m'. However, by the year 2000 only about 10,000 m' of decommissioning waste j is expected to accumulate.'

i Decommissioning in the FRG is being carried out on a case-by-case basis using 2 the following residual contamination Surface contamination limits

, may not exceed 0.37 Bq/cm' (10 pCi/cm' guidelines.) beta-gamma and 0.037 Bq/cm' (1 l alpha, and specific activity limits may not exceed 3.7 Bq/g (100 pCi/g).

Recycle of contaminated materials from nuclear installations is encouraged.

The preferable option is to recycle this material within the nuclear industry, i If this cannot be done for technical or economic reasons, recycle outside the

nuclear industry is allowed if, in accordance with the principals in lAEA

Safety Series No. 89, individual risks are sufficiently low as not to warrant

regulatory concern.

In France most nuclear facilities are owned by the French government through various public companies and organizations. Currently 75% of the electric al power is generated by 50 operating nuclear power plants. There are presently no specific regulatory criteria in place for decommissioning of nuclear 4

facilities. However, in practice France has adopted an early CEC

) recommendation of 100 Bq/g (2700 pCi/g) as a residual contamination limit in cases where only small total quantities of radioactive material have been involved.' [The French are developing recommended residual contaminated

{ limits for CEC under contract) Case-by-case determinations are apparently 4

' G. Wolany, L. Weill, R. Gortz, " Regulatory aspects of Decommissioning in the Federal Republic of Germany", International Seminar on Decommissioning i Policies. Paris, October 2-4, 1991.

• Meis, H.P. , Stang, W., " Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plant Gundremmingen Unit A," 1987 International Decommissioning Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA, October 1987.

I

• Hoffman, R., Leidenberger, B., " Optimization of Measurement Techniques for very low Level Radioactive Waste Material," 1989 International Conference

on the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, October 1989.

• Hempelmann, W., " Treatment of Waste Metals from Decommissioning,"

4 Pittsburgh, PA, October 1987.

• Chapuis, A.M., Guetat, P., Garbay, H.. " Exemption limits for the Recycling of Materials form the Dismantling of Nuclear Installations," 1987 International Decommissioning Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA, October 1987.

2

made in situations where large total quantities of radioactive materials are involved.

in the United Kingdom residual radioactivity criteria for decommissioning is developed on a case-by-case basis using the general principals set out in l AEA Safety Series No. 89.

In Finland there is a federal guide for disposal or recycle of wastes from nuclear facilities.' The guide adopts the dose guidelines from lAEA Safety Series No. 89 and applies the following activity constraints to unrestricted exemption: (a) Total activity concentration of 1 kBq/kg of beta or gamma activityor100Bq/kgofalphaactivityaveragedoveramaximumof1000kgof waste, and (b) total non-fixed surface contamination (averaged over 0.1 m for accessible surfaces) of 4 kBq/m' of beta or gamr* activity or 400 Bq/m' of alpha activity. The guide does not specificall, address whether the guidelines apply to lands and structures.

In general, disposal or recycle in European countries of materials (including lands and structures) containing residual radioactivity is carried out in accordance with the principals for limiting radiation dose to members of the public set out in IAEA Safety Series No. 89. However, specific national guidelines derived from these principles (and expressed in terms of residual radioactivity in materials to be released for unrestricted release) have so f ar been developed principally for recycle of materials from nuclear power pl ant s , Current practice in most European countries is to derive residual radioactivity criteria for lands and structures on a case-by-case basis using the general principals set out in IAEA Safety Series No. 89.

The Commission of European Communities (CEC) has recommended clearance levels for mass and/or surface activity concentration for recycle of materials from dismantling of nuclear installations, based on generic assessment of individual and collective doses from recycle and use of the material.' There are presently no CEC guidelines for unrestricted release of lands and structures. However, the CEC preparing guidelines which are expected to be in place in 1994. Individual member countries would then be expected to adopt these guidelines.

• YVL-Guide 8.2 " Exemption from Regulatory Control of Nuclear Wastes,"

2nd Revised Edition, January 5,1992, Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, Helsinki, Finland.

' Radiation Protection No. 43 " Radiological Protection Criteria for the Recycling of Materials From Dismantling of Nuclear Installations," p 17, Commission of the European Communities", Luxe.mbourg, November 1988.

3

Enclosure F

..... 3 ,, ss eac= eroesee, e+eseee, oc seisoes>:s via at si saev6:== esos e or si NPO SITE CLEANUP CRITERIA WORKSHOP

' Draft Agenda (As of January 19, 1993)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1993 9:00 Coffee 9:30 Welcome and Background Enhanced Participatory Pulemaking and the Establishment of Site Cleanup Criteria -- Chip Cameron, imC

• What is the Enhanced Participatory Rule. making Process and why has NFC selected it?

• Why does NRC want to develop cleanup criteria?

9:50 EPA activities regarding the establishment of site cleanup criteria --

Allan Richardson, EPA

• What are the key EPA activities and timeframe?

• In what ways is EPA interacting with IGC?

10:00 Workshop Format -- Michael Lesnick, Earbara Stinson and Connie Lewis, The Ke'/stene Center

• What are the goals and objectives?

• What is the agenda?

• What ere the groundrules for conducting the workshep and what is the role of the facilitators?

10: 10 Partic. pant Introductions

• Name, affiliation, and locaticr.

• Two important issues for discussion in the workshop 11:00 Ereak 11:15 Decormissioning Process -- Michael Weber, NRC

• What is decommissioning?

• What licensed facilities are affected?

11:30 Erief Peview of the Issues Paper and International Standards -- Don Cool, NR:

11:45 Public Comment 12:00 noon Lunch (on your own) k

19JAN93 19: 55 FADM 629034B1 0643040L TO 3015043725 VIA AT ET EASYLINk PAGE 9 0F 11 12:45 Introductory Discussion *

• The Rulemaking Issues paper identifies four possible fundamental objectives which could serve as the basis for a regulatory approach to cite cleanup standerds. The four fundamental objectives reflect alternative regulatory approaches to the development of decommissioning standards, either separately or in some combination with one another. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of developing generic standards through rulemaking as opposed to continuing the present case-by-case approach?

1:45 Cross-cutting Issues Discussion - A discussion of the cross-cutting issues that can be used to compare and contrast the alternative regulatory approaches for developing cleanup standards

• In what ways do the alternative regulatory approaches protect humen health, safety and the environment?

How will populations (s) and individuals (s) be protecter' in what locations, and over what timeframe? What are the relative merits of each alternative regulatory approach?

What level (s) of health protection should be sought? What are the relative merits of each alternative regulatory approach in terms of achieving this level?

Should a separate set of standards be established to protect natural systems? If so, how?

3: 15 Public ccm. ment 3:30 Ereak 3:45 Cress-Cutting Issues Discussien (continued)

W at te:hnical capabilities are necessary and available for use in the alternative regulatory approaches?

What technical capabilities would be needed to implement the approaches (e.g., remediation, site characterization, modelling, regulatory review, measurement, and monitoring)?

Specifically, what cleanup technologies for lands, structures, and groundwater would be needed to implement the approach?

Are these technological and technical capabilities currently available? Are they expected and, if so, when?

5: 15 Public com. ment 5:45 Sum. mary and Adjournment

- 19JAN93 19:55 FROM 62903481 0643040L TO 3015043725 VIA AT&T EASVLINK Pa0E 10 0F 11 i

I THUPSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1993 8:00 Coffee B:30 Cross-Cutting Issues Discussion (continued)

• How do the alternative regulatory approaches relate to existing federal, regional, state and local regulatory frameworks?

-- To what extent do the alternative regulatory approaches achieve long-term, regulatory stability? What should be the effect of new standards or information on prior decommissioning actions?

-- Does each alternative regulatory approach facilitate regulatory compliance?

-- Does each provide sufficient incentives for timely and effective decommissioning?

-- Will there be cases where release for " unrestricted use" may be difficult to achieve? How should these situations be addressed?

10:00 Public com. ment 10:15 Ereak 10:30 Cross-Cutting Issues Discussion (continued)

• To what. extent should cost and other implementation considerations, including nonradiological risks and costs, be considered in selecting a regulatory approach for the standards?

What are the implementation considerations, including cost, that relate to altornative regulatory approaches?

What weight should be given to these considerations in selecting a regulatory approach?

-- How do each of the alternative regulatory approaches af fect the types and distributions of costs and benefits?

-- If a cost-benefit approach is used, what cost and benefits i should be considered? Should individual or population (or both) doses be considered? If costs are balanced against dose averted, what value should be used in evaluating the ratio?

12:00 Public corrent 12: 15 Lunch (on your ocJ l

1

19JAN93 19:55 FROM 62903481 0643040L TO 3015043725 VIA ATET EASYLINK PA00 11 DF 11 ,

1:00 Cross-Cutting Issues Discussion (continued) ,

i

• What are the waste management implications of each alternative reguletory approach?

-- How do each of the alternative regulatory approaches relate to the quantity and types of wastes produced?

To what extent would each alternative regulatory approach transfer the risk to another medium or population?

How should each alternative regulatory approach apply to former waste disposals?

-- To what extent does each alternative regulatory approach address other options for waste management, including recycling and reuse?

2:30 Public Comment 2:45 E:eak 3:00 Other Fey Issues (remaining issues not already covered)

How should the standards address the effect of raden releases?

Shculd criteria be established for protecting specific pathways er resources (e.g., groundwater)?

4:00 Public Comment and Su=r.ary of Workshop Issues 4: 30 Ad; urn 239\C7\CE-C53.das

19JAN93 19:55 FROM 629034Bi-0643040L TO 3015043725 VIA AT&T EA5vLINK PAGE 2 0F 11 i

Enclosure G NRC Site Cleanup Criteria Workshops i January 27-28, 1993 Chicago, Illinois ,

(As of January 19, 1993)

CITIZEN /EINIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS l Daniel Balocca

, Co-Founder Thorium Action Group 29 W131 Blair

! West Chicago, IL 50485

!- 708-293-1287 FAX: c/o Annette Yeager 312-357-0323

Susan L. Hiatt

- Director i Ohio Citizens for-Responsible Energy, Inc.

8275 Munson Road-Mentor, OH 44050-2405 215-255-3159 FAX

215-255-3159 (not on all the time)

David A. F. raft President Nuclear Energy Information Services P.O. Box 1537 Evanston, IL 60204-1537 705-E59-7550

FAX

N')

i

Carolyn Raffensperger Illinois Environmental Council

! 930 Dunlop Forest Park, IL 50130 317-544-5954 FAX: 705-355-5535

, Mary P. Sinclair, Ph.D.

Co-Chair i Don't Waste Michigan

, 5711 Somerset Drive Midland, MI 45540 517-535-1303

FAX

517-835-7954 l

Chris Trepal Co-Director Earth Day Coalition 3505 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 216-281-5455 Fax: 215-951-0004 f

[=$ = E ** **

E

• f f,8 f"

iveahva iviba raun oz,uosei sesou4et ab 49i304372b via A161 LAbYL1ht Fabt 3 be il 4

TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS

-Robert Holden Project Director Nuclear Waste Project National Congress of American Indians 900 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20003 202-545-9404 301-809-5238 (h)

FAX: 202-545-3741 LOCAL GOVERNMENT Erv Ball Supervisor Environmental Contingency Unit Cuyahoga County Board of Health 1 Playhouse Square 1375 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115 215-443-7520 FAX: 215-443-7537 J. Donald Foster City Administrator City of West Chicago P.O. Box 455 475 Main Street West Chicago, IL 50155 706-293-2212 FAX: 705-293-3025 Craig Thompson Wisconsin Counties Association 802 W. Broadway p325 Madison, WI 53713 50S-255-54S0 FAX: 506-221-3532 STATE GOVERNMENT David W. Minnar Chief, Licensing and Registration Health Division of Radiological Health Michigan Department of Public Health 3423 North Logan Street P.O. Box 30195 Lansing, MI 48909 517-335-8200 FAX: 517-335-8705

. ___ =1 .-

TO 30l$063725 VIA AT&T EASYLINa PAGE 4 0F !!

19JANO3 10:55 FROM 629034BI 06 430 40L Richard Allen Office Manager, office of Environmental Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, IL 52704 217-782-1322 FAXs 217-524-4724 Robert E. Owen Chief Bureau of Radiological Health Ohio Department of Health 35 Chestnut Street P.O. B0x 118 Columbus, OH 43255-0118 514-544-2727 FAX: 514-544-1909 NUCLEAR UTILITIES Frank Rescek Commonwealth Edison Room 1248 P.O. Box 757 Chicago, IL 50590 312-294-3932 Fax: 312-294-4403 Mike C. Williams Manager, Nuclear Services Union Electric Company P.O. Box 149 St. Louis, MO 53155 314-554-3755 Fax 314-554-3556 FUEL CYCLE INDUSTRY A. Edward Scherer Vice President, Regulatory Affairs ABB Combustion Engineering 1000 Prospect Hill Road P.O. Box 500 Windsor, CT 05095-0500 203-225-5200 FAX: 203-285-5202

19JAN93 19: 55 FADM 62903481 0643040L TO 3015043725 VIA AT &T [A5vLINK PAGE 5 0F 11 ,

Jack E. Honey "

Regulatory Affairs Manager Allied-Signal Inc.

Metropolis Works P.O. Box 430 Metropolis, IL 62950 518-524-5245 FAX: 518-524-6239 MIDICAL COMMUNITY AND NON-FUEL CYCLE INDUSTRY Mark Doruff Manager Environment & Safety Regulatory Affairs Amersham Corporation 2535 South Clearbrook Drive Arlington Heights, IL 50005 -

708-593-5300 \

Fax: 708-437-1599 k I Henry D. Royal, M.D.

Associate Professor Washington University School of Medicine  !

510 South Kingshighway Boulevard -

St. Louis, MO 63110 314-352-2509 {

FAX: 314-352-2805 CLEAN UP CONTRACTOR H.W. " Bud" Arrowsmith Scientific Ecology Group (SEG)

P.O. Eox 2530 1550 Eear Creek Road Oak Ridge, TN 37530 515-461-0222 FAX: 515-452-7205 PROFESSIONAL SCCIETY/ STANDARD SETTINS ORGANIZATIONS Dr. Herman Ce-ter Health Physics Society The Technological Institute Northwestern University Evaneton, IL 50205 709-491-4006 Fax: 70S-491-4011

I vesawes ie:ss raon 629034st c643040L to 30:s043725 via at st tasvLINF Pact 6 or it Dr. Robert G. Thomas Argonne National Laboratory ER-203

9700 S. Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 50439 i 706-252-4157

Fax

708-252-2959

. U.S. E!NIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN Y j Allan C. Richardson

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MO-5502-J j 401 M Street, SW Washington, Ic 20450 -

202-233-9290 J Fav 202-233-9284 2

4 Pa~ela Russell Office of Radiation and Indoor Air

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency j MO-5503-J 401 M Street, SW Washington, IC 20450 202-233-9340 2

Fax: 202-233-9550 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COW.ISSION i

j Francis X. (Chip) Cameron

Special Counsel for Public Liaison and Weste Management Office of the General Counsel 4

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 301-50'-1542

Fax

301-504-3725 Donald A. Cool, Ph.D.

. Branch Chief l Radiation Protection and Health Effects Branch ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l' Division of Regulatory _ Applications Washington, DC 20555

301-492-3785 Fax: 301-492-3855  ;

l t

4 k

l l

i Michael F. Weber Section Leader, Pegulatory Issues Section Low-Level Waste Management & Decommissioning U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop SE4 Washington, DC 20555 301-504-1298 Fax: 301-504-2250 THE KEYSTONE CENTER STAFF Michael T. Lesnick Senior Vice President The Keystone Center P.O. Box 6505 Keystone, CO 80435-80435 303-458-5S22 Fax: 303-252-0152 Connie Lewis Senior Associate The Keystone Center P.O. Lex 5505 Keystone, CO 80435-80435 303-455-5522 Fax: 303-252-0152 Denise A. Siebert Administrative Assutant The Keystone Center P.O. Box 6505 Keystone, CO SO435-50435 303-455-5522 Fax: 303-252-0152 Earbara L. Stinson Associate The Keystone Center P.O. Box E505 Keystone, CO 60435-80435 303-458-5522 i'ax : 303-252-0152

. ENCLOSURE H - RULEMAKING SCHEDULE WORKSHOPS AND COMMENT PERIOD COMPLETE -- -5/28/93 NOTICE OF-INTENT TO PREPARE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT STATEMENT (GEIS); REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF GEIS -- 6/4/93 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ON GEIS -- 6/30/93 SCOPING PROCESS COMPLETE -- 7/I5/93 NRC

SUMMARY

OF WORKSHOP COMMENTS COMPLETE -- 7/1/93 REGULATORY ANALYSIS COMPLETE -- 10/93 DRAFT GEIS COMPLETE -- 10/93 DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE ON DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATION COMPLETE --

10/93 STAFF REVIEW AND CONCVRRENCE ON DRAFT PROPOSED RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- 11/93 STAFF REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE COMPLEiE -- 2/94 DRAFT PROPOSED RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO EDO -- 3/94 DRAFT PROPOSED RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO COMMISSION -- 4/94 PROPOSED RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT -- 5/94 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS -- 7/94 FINAL RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- 5/95

._. . . . . . - - .