ML20128H733
| ML20128H733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/20/1996 |
| From: | Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Larkins J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128H682 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-GENERAL, NACNUCLE, NUDOCS 9610100046 | |
| Download: ML20128H733 (192) | |
Text
. .
,+M t z ge ~*, UNITED STATES a *O #
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506-0001
. . March 20,1996 MEMORANDUM T0: John T. Larkins, Executive Director Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards n
FROM: Bill M. Morris, Director M. Mhw Division of Regulatory Apflications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE TO AMEND 10 CFR PARTS 2, 50 AND 51 RELATED TO DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS l
On July 20, 1995, a proposed rule was published in the Federal Reaister (60 FR I 37374) that would amend power reactor decommissioning procedures. In accordance with the revised procedures for rulemaking described in Management Directive 6.3, the draft Federal Register notice for the subject final rulemaking is attached to keep the ACRS informed about our progress on this rulemaking. This final rule would amend the decommissioning regulations in !
Parts 2, 50, and 51 to clarify the applicability of certain regulations to permanently shutdown reactors. In addition, the final rulemaking would amend the decommissioning regulations in Part 50 to codify procedures and terminology that have been used in a number of specific cases. We met with the ACRS on March 9, 1995, to discuss the details of the proposed rulemaking.
As noted in our letter of February 15, 1996, in response to the ACRS letter of March 17, 1995, and in response to public comments, as noted in the FRN (Issue 10, P. 35), we will continue to evaluate the need for additional regulatory relief in the decommissioning area. The current version of this rulemaking is ,
being provided to the ACRS for your information.
Based on the resolution of comments received on the proposed rule, only minor changes were made to the final rule, except in two areas. First, the proposed i 50.59(e) has been eliminated and three of the four constraints included in that paragraph have been moved to 5 50.82(a)(5) and (6). A fourth constraint prohibiting the licensee from performing major decommissioning activities that would violate the terms of the license was removed because it is redundant.
Second, the "grandfathering" provision in the proposed rule (introductory paragraph in 5 50.82) was modified to require that for power reactor licensees who either submitted a decommissioning plan for approval or possess an approved decommissioning plan, prior to the rule becoming effective, the plan would be considered as the PSDAR submittal required under i 50.82(a)(5). The proposed rule permitted power reactor licensees with an approved decommissioning plan the option of either continuing with the old rule requirements or converting to the new ones. The draft FRN contains redline / strikeout showing all the intended changes between the proposed and final rule.
961010oo46 96o326 PDR ACRS PDR GENERAL
I J. Larkins 2 Presently, the FRN is out for office concurrence and we expect to provide this rulemaking to the EDO by the end of March 1996. Our current schedule includes a target date for publication of the final rule by the end of May 1996. -
However, this date is subject to change. The contact for this rulemaking is Carl Feldman and he can be reached at 415-6194.
l
Attachment:
As stated l
l i
4 l
l
l
[7590-01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, and 51 RIN 3150-AE96 l Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i ACTION: Final rule.
l
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations on the l
i decommissioning procedures that lead to the termination of an operating l
license for nuclear power reactors. The final amendments clarify ambiguities l
in the current rule and codify practices that have been approved on a case-by-case basis. Some minor amendments pertain to non-power reactors and are for i
purposes of clarification and procedural simplification.
l EFFECTIVE DATE: (60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register) l l
t
l FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Carl Feldman, Office of Nuclear 1
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6194; or Anthony W. Markley, Office of Nuclear l Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND In June 1988, the Commission promulgated the current rule for decommissioning (53 FR 24018). In July 1995, the Commission issued proposed amendments to these regulations (60 FR 37374). A discussion of the current requirements and proposed amendments follows.
Current reauirements Within two years after a licensee permanently ceases operation of a nuclear reactor facility, it must submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC for approval, along with a supplemental environmental report that addresses environmental issues that have not already been considered. Based on these submittals, the NRC reviews the licensee's planned activities, performs an environmental assessment (EA) and either makes a negative det.laration of impact (the usual case) or prepares an environmental impact analysis (EIS). Upon NRC approval of the decommissioning plan, the Commission l issues an order permitting the licensee to decommission its facility in
1 accordance with the approved plan. As part of the approval process, the I
! opportunity for a hearing under Subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2, is made available
^
to the public. Once the decommissioning process is completed and the NRC is l l
l l
satisfied that the facility has been radioactivelv decontaminated to an l
unrestricted release level, the NRC license is terminated.
l If the licensee chooses to place the reactor in storage and dismantle it l
l at a later time, the initial decommissioning plan submittal need not be as detailed as a plan for prompt dismantlement. However, before the licensee can complete dismantlement, a detailed decommissioning plan and environmental report must be submitted and approved, as for prompt dismantlement.
l l
Prior to approval of the decommissioning plan, the licensee can only perform minor facility activities such as maintenance and housekeeping and l
l must comply with all operating license requirements. If a licensee desires a reduction in such requirements because of the permanent cessation of operation, it must obtain a license amendment for possession-only status.
This is usually granted after the licensee indicates that the reactor has permanently ceased operations and fuel has been permanently removed from the l
reactor vessel. l 1
Regarding financial assurance for decommissioning, a licensee is required to provi<ie assurance that at any time during the life of the facility, through termination of the license, adequate funds will be available to complete decommissioning. For operating reactors, the amount of decommissioning funding required is generically prescribed in the rule, under 10 CFR 50.75.
Five years prior to license expiration or cessation of operation, a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate must be submitted and the financial assurance mechanism must be v
! 3 l
. ____ ~ _- _ - - - - - - . _ . . -_ __ -___ _ _ . . . _ _ . _. _ _ _ _ .
appropriately adjusted. Finally, the decommissioning plan, submitted within two years after permanent cessation of operations, must provide a site-specific cost estimate for decommissioning and a correspondingly adjusted financial assurance mechanism. For delayed dismantlement of a power reactor facility, an updated decommissioning plan must include the estimated cost of decommissioning and the licensee must appropriately adjust the financial assurance mechanism. Prior to approval of the decommissioning plan, no required decommissioning funds can be used by the licensee. For premature closure, when accrual of required decommissioning funds may be incomplete, licensee use of these funds would be approved on a case-specific basis.
Proposed amendments The amendments proposed in July 1995 were intended to provide licensees with simplicity and flexibility in implementing the decommissioning process, especially with regard to premature closure. The amendments would also clarify ambiguities in the current regulations, codify procedures and terminology that have been used in a number of specific cases, and increase opportunities for the public to become informed about the licensee's decommissioning activities. The amendments were designed to establish a level of NRC oversight commensurate with the level of safety concerns expected during decommissioning activities.
A. Initial activities - The decommissioning process outlined in the proposed amendments is similar in approach to that in the current decommissioning rule, but flexibility in the type of actions that can be undertaken without NRC approval is included. Once a licensee permanently 4
l l
ceases operation of the power reactor, no major decommissioning activities (as defined in the proposed rule) could be undertaken until the public and the NRC are provided information by the licensee. Information would be required from the licensee in a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) that consists of the licensee's proposed decommissioning activities and schedule through license termination, an assessment of whether such proposed activities are bounded by existing analyses of environmental impacts, and a general decommissioning cost estimate for the proposed activities. The PSDAR is made available to the public for comment.
Ninety days after the PSDAR is submitted to the NRC and approximately 30 l days after a public information meeting is held in the vicinity of the reactor l l
site, the licensee could perform major decommissioning activities provided the NRC does not offer an objection. Prior to undertaking such activities, the J licensee must provide certifications to the NRC that operations have permanently ceased and fuel has been permanently removi from the reactor vessel (elements not formally addressed in the current rule). Once these certifications have been provided to the NRC, the licensee could no longer operate the reactor.
Part 50 technical requirements would also be amended to properly cover the transition of the facility from operating to permanent shutdown status (which is also not explicitly covered in the current rule). Thus, a licensee who has permanently ceased operations and removed fuel from the reactor vessel would no longer need to obtain a license amendment to proceed with certain decommissioning activities within established regulatory constraints.
5
l B. Major decomissioning activities - A major change from the current rule is that power reactor licensees would no longer be re. 4 red to have an l
approved decommissioning plan before being permitted to perform major l decommissioning activities. Under the proposed rules, licensees would have i l been allowed to perform such activities meeting the criteria proposed in 5 50.59. Section 50.59 would have been amended to include additional criteria to ensure that concerns specific to decommissioning are considered by the 1
l l licensee. Based on NRC experience with licensee decommissioning activities, the Commission recognized that the 5 50.59 process used by the licensee during
)
l l reactor operations encompassed routine activities that are similar to those l
undertaken during the decommissioning process. The Commission concluded that the 5 50.59 process could be used by the licensee to perform major i
decommissioning activitie', provided the licensing conditions and level of NRC l oversight required during reactor operations are continued, commensurate with the status of the facility being decommissioned. These objectives were considered in the propose rule as follows.
(1) The proposed rule would have clarified, modified, and extended certain licensing conditions to decommissioning activities.
(2) Aside from changes to Part 50, the final safety analysis report ,
)
(FSAR), which is a licensing basis document for performing activities under i 50.59, would need to be updated to cover decommissioning activities.
(3) A PSDAR would be submitted to the NRC that would contain a schedule of planned decommissioning activities and provide a mechanism for timely NRC oversight; the licensee would provide written notification to the 6
NRC before performing any decommissioning activity that is inconsistent with or makes significant schedule changes from the PSDAR.
I C. License termination - A licensee wishing .to terminate its license would submit a license termination plan for approval similar to the approach l that is currently required for a decommissioning plan. The plan could provide information similar to a decommissioning plan as required by the current rule or could be as simple as a final site survey plan. The approval process for the termination plan, as in the current rule, would provide far a hearing opportunity under 10 CFR Part 2. The proposed rule recognized that, if the 1
spent fuel is either offsite or in an independent spent fuel facility (ISFSI), i that is covered under a Part 72 license, the remaining facility licensed under l
Part 50 is similar to a materials facility and a less formal hearing, under i Subpart L of Part 2, is more appropriate. As in the current rule, a l
supplemental environmental report would be required from the licensee that l considers environmental impacts that are not already covered in existing EISs.
An additional requirement, proposed for the purpose of keeping the public informed, is that a public meeting be held, after the licensee submits the license termination plan to the NRC, similar to the one held after the PSDAR submittal.
D. Financial assurance - The proposed rule provided the same degree of financial assurance as the current rule, but more flexibly, by allowing the licensee's early use of decommissioning funds. This provision was presented in a draft policy statement entitled "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Decommissioning F'ean Approval" (59 FR 5216; February 3,1994) and incorporated into the propot.ed rule. The current rule allows no use of such 7
l
funds until the licensee's decommissioning plan is approved. However, the J l
proposed rule eliminated the requirement for a decommissioning plan and 1 instead required a PSDAR submittal, which requires a decommissioning cost I
estimate. The proposed rule permitted some small percentage (5%) of the generically prescribed decommissioning funds to be available to the licensee for planning purposes (" paper studies") prior to permanent cessation of power reactor operations. Moreover, to permit the licensee to accomplish major decommissioning activities promptly, an additional generic funding amount would be made available (20%) prior to a site-specific cost estimate, which must be submitted to the NRC within two years after permanent cessation of operations (as in the current rule). The remainder of the funds would be made available after submittal of the site-specific cost estimate, as in the current rule. When the licensee submits the license termination plan, financial assurance considerations similar to those in the current rule for the deferred dismantlement plan would be included.
E. License extension - The proposed rule clarified that a license that has expired is not terminated until the Commission terminates it and further clarifies what conditions prevail under such circumstances.
F. Grandf athering - The proposed rule applied to power reactor licensees who do not have an approved decommissioning plan on the effective date of the final rule. Licensees that already have an approved plan could, at their option, follow the provisions of the proposed rule.
8
i G. Non-power reactors - There were some minor clarifications and procedural simplifications in the proposed rule for the non-power reactor decommissioning process. Otherwise, the current rule remains essentially unchanged.
Response to Comments.
Thirty four comment letters were received on the proposed rule from power reactor licensees, contractors, government agencies, Agreement States, citizens groups, and individuals. The comment letters have been categorized into two groups representing commenters generally in favor of the proposed rule and those generally not in favor of the proposed rule. The commenters in favor of the rule (24) consisted of power reactor licensees, contractors, government agencies, and an Agreement State. The commenters not in favor of the rule (10) consisted of citizens groups, individuals, and an Agreement State. The comments have been summarized and addressed through issue categories based on the proposed rule.
ISSUE 1 - Proposed Rule Approach Comments: Commenters in support of the proposed rule were, to varying degrees, supportive of the proposed rule. There were a few commenters in this group who fully supported the proposed rule because it would facilitate efficient decommissioning of power plants by reducing regulatory burden, clarifying the applicability of regulations originally intended for operating reactors, allowing a phased approach to decommissioning, and allowing early partial use of the decommissioning trust fund. A few commenters supported the 9
use of lessons learned from ongoing decommissioning projects, expanding public participation, and providing the rationale behind less formal NRC policies and practices in a way that satisfies the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), Administrative Procedures Act, and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
While many comenters were generally supportive of the general concept of the proposed rule, they indicated that the proposed rule did not go far enough in reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. They noted that the existing NRC i
requirements regarding operating reactors were more than adequate to encompass decommissioning activities and, if anything, should be relaxed rather than i expanded. These recommended relaxations pertainea to such items as a more liberal attitude toward collection and use of decommissioning trust funds, elimination of unnecessary criteria concerning the use of the proposed i
5 50.59, elimination of proposed mandatory public meetings, elimination of the proposed Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) submittal, l
and elimination of the proposed license termination plan or eliminating its inclusion into the license by amendment, including elimination of the l
' accompanying proposed Subpart L or G hearing opportunity.
Commenters not in favor of the proposed rule were not supportive of the 1
proposed rule to varying degrees. Many of these commenters were strongly opposed to the proposed rule and indicated that it allowed nuclear power l
generators to have discretionary powers to regulate themselves; that NRC was abdicating its responsibility for protecting the health and safety of workers f
and the public; that, in allowing the decommissioning plan to be included in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) it could be revisited without license amendment, excluding the public from the process; and that major component 10
removal should not be allowed before the decommissioning plan is approved by the NRC. These commenters expressed a variety of views indicating that the existing rule should be left alone or that the current rule should be left basically in place but made more efficient through better implementation and should include greater opportunities for public participation. Finally, a few commenters indicated that significantly greater public participation and oversight are necessary than that prescribed in the proposed rule, even to the point that the public is involved with every aspect of the decommissioning l process.
Response: The proposed rule was developed to allow more flexibility in dealing with premature closures, the decommissioning process in genera'l, and the experience gained from recent decommissioning activities such as those at i Fort St. Vrain, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Humboldt Bay Unit 3, Lacrosse, and San j Onofre Unit 1, as well as early component removal at Yankee Rowe. The i
justification and intent of the final rule is the same as the existing rule.
The NRC's primary concern, as the licensee transitions to decommissioning, is that the licensee will have sufficient funds to complete decommissioning and that the activities undertaken by the licensee will protect the public and the l environment. The intent of this final rule is to streamline some of the decommissioning requirements for power reactor licensees, especially in approval of the decommissioning plan before major decommissioning activities can be undertaken and in early use of decommissioning trust funds.
Specific issues addressed in the final rule are discussed in greater detail below.
11
l l
l Issue 2 - PSDAR, FSAR, and update requirements l
l Comments: Commenters in favor of the rule had Various comments concerning the i PSDAR, its required update, and the proposed update to the FSAR. Several commenters indicated that the PSDAR requirement should be eliminated because it is more stringent than requirements imposed on operating reactors, that the PSDAR should only require information (detailed schedule) pertaining to the current phase of decommissioning because dismantlement and site restoration may not occur for many years, that the word " synopsis" should be used to make it clear that the PSDAR is a high-level summary, and that there should be consistency in the criteria for assessing environmental impacts between the PSDAR and the proposed 5 50.59 requirements. There were a few comments on making the reporting requirements more efficient regarding PSDAR and FSAR updates such as combining them and updating them together, requiring updates no more than once every 36 months, or using a single PSDAR for multi-reactor sites. There were also several comments that the updating requirement for the PSDAR be eliminated because 5 50.59 already requires annual reporting l requirements, that the term "significant" used in 5 50.82(a)(6) should be tied to the i 50.59 safety evaluation, and that the extent of deviation in the PSDAR schedule that is permissible without notice to the NRC should be clarified. Finally, there was a comment that the final rule should make it clear that, if prompt decommissioning (dismantlement) is being pursued by the licensee, the PSDAR and license termination plan should be permitted to be the same document.
12
Commenters not in favor of the rule did not specifically address issue 2, but in general, those commenters believed that the current. rule requirements should be followed and that an approved decommissioning plan should be required before a licensee is permitted to perform major decommissioning activities.
Response: The purpose of the PSDAR is to provide a general overview for the j public and the NRC of the licensee's proposed decommissioning activities until 2 years before termination of the license. The PSDAR is part of the mechanism for informing and being responsive to the public prior to any significant decommissioning activities taking place. It also serves to inform and alert the NRC staff to the schedule of licensee activities for inspection planning purposes and for decisions regarding NRC oversight activities. Because the final rule eliminates the need for an approved decommissioning plan before major decommissioning activities can be performed, the requirement to submit a PSDAR is less stringent than existing requirements for power reactor l licensees.
1 The information required to be in the PSDAR is less detailed than the information required in the FSAR. Therefore, the PSDAR should not be combined with the FSAR because the two documents have different purposes. The final rule requires a written notification (or an updated PSDAR submittal) if major changes are anticipated with regard to the PSDAR activities previously described (including significant changes in decommissioning costs), such as scheduling changes, if the start or cessation of decommissioning activities will change by more than a year, or significant modifications, such as
! erection and use of a new radioactive waste disposal facility. It is intended 13 l
that regulatory guidance addressing the PSDAR Standard Format and Content will be issued soon after the final rule is published.
Currently, FSAR updates are required annually or six months after a ,
I l refueling outage provided the interval between updates does not exceed 24 ]
l months. Since the FSAR is the basis for the use of 5 50.59, the updates will need to be timely, so the final rule specifies a 24-month FSAR update for l
decommissioning activities.
If prompt decommissioning is desired by the licensee, the licensee could elect early submittal of the PSDAR, prior to cessation of operation, and then 5 50.59 would be permitted at cessation of operation, provided the l certification of permanent fuel removal from the reactor vessel has been received and the public meeting had been held in advance. Although the PSDAR I and license termination plan serve different purposes, and a formal approval process is required of the latter, the PSDAR and license termination plan can f be combined. If a licensee chooses to combine the PSDAR and the license termination plan, the requirements for both would apply to the combined document, including the requisite waiting period, public meeting, and approval by amendment of the license termination plan. The procedure for approval of a license termination plan is similar to that currently required for approval of a decommissioning plan. For a multi-reactor site, the PSDAR could address the activities for all the reactors at the site if decommissioning of each will be undertaken at the same time.
Issue 3 - Ninety-Day Time Period Prior to Undertaking Major Decommissioning Activities 14 i
i I
Comment: Several commenters noted that the proposed 90-day waiting period, before major decommissioning activities could be undertaken, did not address a health and safety concern and that there are potentially high costs associated with such a delay because licensees could do a lot of dismantlement during this time that would be more efficient and cost advantageous. These commenters emphasized that all activities could be carried out under i 50.59 and the current licensing basis. They further stated that, if the 90-day hold is retained, clarification is needed regarding the NRC's opportunity to interpose an objection to proceeding with major decommissioning and that the NRC review should be based on areas of significant safety. Finally, one commenter expressed a concern that the 90-day waiting period would not allow enough time for public participation, including consideration of comments received from the public after NRC notices the licensee's PSDAR submittal and
, during a public meeting.
Commenters not in favor of the rule did not specifically address Issue 3, but in general, those commenters believed that the current rule requirements should be followed and that an approved decommissioning plan should be required before a licensee is permitted to perform major decommissioning activities.
Response: The commenters have correctly noted that the 90-day waiting period does not just address a health and safety issue. The NRC has chosen a 90 day waiting period prior to allowing major decommissioning activities to occur as the minimal time necessary for the NRC to evaluate the licensee's proposed activities and to conduct a public meeting. The public meeting is informational and may be chaired by a local official, with a presentation of 15
the regulatory process for decommissioning by the NRC, presentation of planned decommissioning activities by the licensee, and participation by State representatives. A question and answer period would follow the presentations.
By submitting the PSDAR prior to cessation of operation, a licensee could reduce the need for a waiting period (see the response to Issue 2 for an !
additional discussion on ways that the waiting period may be reduced).
Issue 4 - Proposed Rule Modifications to i 50.59 Comment: Many commenters approved of some form of the proposed modifications to i 50.59. Many of these commenters noted that i 50.59(e) in the proposed rule is more stringent than the existing requirements for operating reactors, and they believed that the existing 5 50.59 criteria are adequate. Several l commenters stated that the four proposed criteria are somewhat redundant as to proposed controls in 5 50.82; the PSDAR content plus update and the 90-day waiting period envelopes issues addressed by these criteria. These commenters believed that if 5 50.59(e) criteria were kept they should be in a-regulatory guide and not in a rule. Comments specific to the four criteria and why they should be eliminated follow.
50.59(e)(1)(i): Concerning foreclosure of the site for unrestricted release, it was noted that any event that detracts from this effort would be accidental in nature, and that the proposed rule provided no explanation of the types of activities that could result in foreciosing the site for unrestricted use.
16
l l
l l
50.59(e)(1)(ii): Concerning significantly increasing decommissioning costs, it was noted that cost estimate information is required prior to and through the decommissioning process, making this requirement unnecessary. Moreover, it was asserted that there is no logical correlation between the cost of a decommissioning activity and whether a l
license amendment should be required for that activity and that costs have never been a consideration in determining whether a proposed activity is consistent with the licensing basis for a plant. It was also l noted that other regulatory bodies such as Public Utility Commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as economic pressure, will force a licensee to perform decommissioning cost effectively; it was recognized that actions taken by a licensee may diminish the decommissioning fund and it was suggested that the wording be changed to deal with actions that would "significantly inhibit the ability to fund decommissioning costs which would prevent successful decommissioning."
50.59(e)(1)(iii): Concerning environmental impacts not previously reviewed, it was noted that compliance with the operating license, technical specifications, and i 50.59 regarding unreviewed safety questions adequately preclude having significant adverse environmental l
impact that have not been reviewed. Moreover, the requirement is redundant to the requirement concerning unreviewed environmental impacts required in the content of the PSDAR specified in i 50.82.
50.59(e)(1)(iv): Concerning violating the terms of the existing license, it was noted that this requirement is redundant with language in 5 50.59(a) that allows licensees to proceed with an activity so long as 17
_. -- . ~ _ - - - . - - - . - . _ . . _ . . _ _ . __ - - . - . - -. ..
I it does not violate technical specifications or constitute an unreviewed safety question as defined by 5 50.59(a)(2). Also, it was noted that a license amendment is required for changes in technical specifications under the current i 50.59(c).
Most commenters who opposed the use of proposed i 50.59 were not in favor of the rule. One commenter stated that the dismantlement activities proposed under i 50.59 requiring licensees to perform an analysis to determine whether or not the activity generates any unreviewed safety issue should be provided to the NRC, rather than rely on an NRC audit as existing regulations provide; this analysis would also provide this information to the public for examination. Several of the commenters indicated that an after-the-fact review of 5 50.59 activities would provide insufficient regulatory protection. l Finally, a commenter stated that the presence of an NRC inspector is essential during decommissioning activities.
Response: The Commission has reconsidered the need for all the 5 50.59(e)(1) requirements and whether placing them in a different part of the final rule would be more appropriate. The Commission concluded that the proposed i 50.59(e)(1)(iv) is redundant and shculd be eliminated from the final rule.
The other three paragraphs 'can be placed in 5 50.82(a) because that will ensure that they will be considered as overall constraints on the licensee's major decommissioning activities, rather than separately for each contemplated activity in 5 50.59, and the proposed i 50.59(e) can be eliminated.
l The purpose of retaining these requirements is to ensure that no major decommissioning activities can occur that result in: (1) eliminating the 18 i __ _ _ _
potential for unrestricted release, (2) significant environmental impacts not previously considered in EISs, and (3) significantly 1..sreasing decommissioning costs. The basis for this final rule permitting the use of 5 50.59 activities to perform major decommissioning activities is that environmental impacts have already been considered and that such consideration was for an unrestricted release condition where the licensee has i
sufficient funds to complete decommissioning (see final generic environmental impact statement (FGEIS), NUREG-0586)2 .
The Major considerations of licensee decommissioning activities that could significantly affect the environment are at the license termination stage when the licensee submits a license termination plan for approval.
If a licensee contemplates major decommissioning activities that would violate these requirements, the licensee cannot use the ! 50.59 process The delineated in this rule to perform major decommissioning activities.
licensee would then be required to obtain a license amendment for performing the activities.
The final rule prohibits licensees from performing any major decommissioning activities that foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use or result in significant environmental impacts not previously Prior to the licensee's use of the 150.59 process reviewed (i 50.82(a)(5)).
to perform major decommissioning activities, the PSDAR submittal and public information process must be completed. The licensee is required to include a
' NUREG-0586, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilicies," USNRC, August 1988. Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room a 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR's mailing address is Mail Stop LL-6, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (202) 634-3273; fax (202) 634-3343.
19
l l
discussion that provides the reasons for concluding that the environmental impacts that might occur during decommissioning activities have already been considered in site-specific or generic environmental impact statements, and to estimate the amount of funds necessary to complete decommissioning (see 5 50.82(a)(4)).
The licensee is also required to submit a site-specific cost estimate within two years after permanent cessation of operations. Use of deconchissioning trust funds are subject to the requirements (in 5 50.82(a)(7))
that adequate funds will be available to ultimately release the site and terminate the license. Moreover, the final rule requires the licensee to notify the NRC in writing before performing any decommissioning activity inconsistent with, or making any significant schedule change from, those actions and schedules described in the PSDAR and states that this notification include consideration of significant increases in decommissioning costs (i 50 82(a)(6)).
The NRC intends to maintain an active inspection program to provide the requisite level of oversight of licensee activities during decommissioning.
The PSDAR and any written notification of changes required of a licensee will be used to schedule NRC inspection resources for significant decommissioning activities.
In addition to continuing requirements that the licensee must comply with, such as 10 CFR Part 20, regarding protection of workers and the public from radiation, and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 regarding quality assurance, the final rule explicitly extends certain technical requirements to cover decommissioning activities (e.g., il 50.36, 50.36a, 50.36b, and Appendix I i regarding technical specifications for surveillance requirements, i
20 l
l
= _ _ . -_- - . . _ - . _ - ... _ - - . . - - . _ .- . = . -_
administrative controls, control of effluents, and conditions to protect the environment). Thus, there will be a licensing basis appropriate to the activities undertaken using the 150.59 process during decommissioning. By maintaining certain requirements throughout the decommissioning process, licensees will be able to use the existing 5 50.59 process to perform decommissioning activities and thus provide comparable assurance that protection of the public health, safety, and the environment will not be compromised.
Issue 5 - Environmental Impact Considerations During the Initial Phase of Decommissioning Comments: Many commenters fully supported the environmental impact considerations delineated in the proposed rule for the PSDAR submittal, with no mandatory ER or subsequent EA requirement. A few suggested that no environmental impacts for decommissioning need be addressed further because and the FGEIS for the 1988 decommissioning rule (NUREG-0586, August 1988) subsequent environmental assessments (for various actual power reactor aecommissioning situations) demonstrate that decontamination and dismantlement do not significantly affect the human environment and have beneficial effects in restoring the site to an environmentally acceptable condition. A few commenters suggested that decommissioning should be considered a categorical exclusion as defined in 10 CFR 51.22.
Most of the commenters who were in favor of the rule believed that the NRC should define decommissioning as a major federal action requiring an EA or EIS. Thry further indicated that a generic impact statement cannot substitute 21
i for a site-specific EA because the FGEIS does not consider all possibilities.
A few of these commenters further stated that the proposed environmental impact consideration process is NRC's attempt to streamline the process for utilities and deregulate NRC current requirements. A few commenters stated that the process outlined in the proposed rule abdicates NRC's responsibility to protect the health and safety of the workers, the public, the environment, and it also undermines citizen's due process.
, Response: While the FGEIS (NUREG-0586)' for the 1988 decommissioning rule concluded that only minor negative environmental impacts would result from decommissioning in addition to substantial positive environmental impacts, it did not address site-specific situations that could differ from the assumptions used in the FGEIS analysis. However, it is expected that any site impacts will be minor. Any such impact should be bounded by the impacts To evaluated by previous applicable GEISs as well as any site-specific EIS.
account for site-specific situations that may occur outside these environmental impact considerations, the final rule prohibits major decommissioning activities that could result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed. The approval process for the PSDAR and the license termination plan requires licensees to review the existing documents and address any discrepancies in their submittals.
The environmental assessment conducted for this rulemaking relied on the FGEIS for the decomissioning rule (NUREG-0586, August 1988)* in determining that application of the rule will not have a significant impact on the environment. Although not required by NEPA, NRC has required in this final rule, as previously noted, that licensees indicate in the PSDAR the reasons 22
l l
for concluding that the planned activities are bounded by the FGEIS and previous site-specific environmental impact statements. This requirement is l
consistent with one of the primary goals of the PSDAR process, which is to promote public knowledge and provide an opportunity to hear public views on decommissioning activities before licensees comence decomissioning.
At the license termination stage, the Comission must make decisions on l the licensee-proposed actions described in the license termination plan. The Comission must consider (1) the licensee's plan for assuring that adequate funds will be available for final site release, (2) radiation release criteria for license termination, and (3) the adequacy of the final survey required to verify that these release criteria have been met. Therefore, submittal of the license termination plan requires a license amendment. In addition, under i
10 CFR Part 51, an environmental assessment or impact statement would be l required at the time tha license is tmended. Pending resolution of another ongoing NRC rulemaking activity that is considering adoption of radiological release criteria, a categorical exclusion may be adopted that would eliminate j the requirement for an environmental assessment or impact analysis, except in the case of a restricted release of a site.
Issue 6 - Public Participation Comment: Most comenters in support of the rule provided coments on the public participation aspects of the proposed rule and they believed that the participatory role given to the public was appropriate, excessive, or in need of further clarification. Several questioned the need for expanded public participation on matters of public health and safety because the NRC 23
regulatory framework already provides for this (e.g., license amendment process). Moreover, it was noted by these commenters that the purpose of the public meeting following the PSDAR submittal was not properly explained and that the final rule should clearly state that the meeting is intended for exchange of information only. Many commenters indicated that the NRC should limit the scope of these meetings and hearings to issues that are related to health and safety during the decommissioning process, and the supplementary information should include a clear statement of the purpose and participation guidelines for these meetings, and should clearly identify NRC's role at these meetings (which should be significant). There was a comment that it is essential that adequate mechanisms be developed for addressing issues of l
I concern raised by members of the public and that, absent such closure, the meeting would only compound frustrations felt by the interested public.
Finally, there was a comment that the 90-day waiting period (after the submittal of the PSDAR to the NRC) before allowing licensees to undertake major decommissioning activities may not allow enough time for adequate public participation.
I Most commenters who did not favor the rule believed that the public l
participatory role proposed was inadequate. These commenters stated that NRC l
should retain the possession-only license amendment (POLA) and decommissioning plan approval required in the current rule to truly enhance public i
participation. Public meetings were considered helpful, but no substitute for l
an adjudicatory hearing that includes the rights to discovery, to present evidence, and to cross examine. Along these lines, a commenter stated that a meeting does not afford citizens the le :1 of institutional accountability necessary given the dangers of environmental-toxic contamination inherent in f
24
1 reactor decommissioning activities and that citizens must have a substantive role in the decommissioning process in order to clarify, negotiate, and protect their community's interest. It was suggested by a few commenters that site-specific advisory boards (SSABs) should be established early on in the decommissioning process and that meaningful public involvement should be required at every stage of the decommissioning process and not only at the final termination stage.
Response: As discussed previously, initial decommissioning activities (dismantlement) are not significantly different from routine operational activities such as replacement or refurbishment. Because of the framework of regulatory provisions embodied in the licensing basis for the facility, these l
[
activities do not present significant safety issues for which an NRC decision j i
would be warranted. Therefore, it is appropriate that the licensee be l permitted to conduct such activities without the need for a license amendment.
However, the information meetings will be beneficial in keeping the public informed of the licensee's decommissioning activities. Although the primary l
purpose of these meetings is to inform the public of the licensee's planned l
activities, the NRC will address public health and safety comments raised by l l
the public during the 90-day period prior to the licensee undertaking l
1 decommissioning activities.
It is appropriate that a more formal public participation process be l
l provided at the termination stage of decommissioning, because the final disposition of the site is determined at that time. Under the current rule, I
the Commission issues an order permitting the reactor to be decommissioned, l based on the approved decommissioning plan, which amends the license. NRC 1
25
1 administrative procedures, in Subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2, now provide an j opportunity for persons to request a hearing regarding the NRC's decision. A j
)
similar procedure will be followed in the final rule for the license termination plan, except the hearing will be less formal, following the )
procedures in Subpart L of 10 CFR Part 2, once the licensee has permanently removed fuel from the site. The role of the SSABs will be evaluated when the rulemaking regarding radiological release criteria for license termination is finalized.
Issue 7 - Establishment and Use of the Decomissioning Trust Fund Coment: Most of the commenters on this issue were not in favor of the rule.
These commenters requested greater flexibility in what costs can be included in the fund, such as disposal costs of radioactive waste from plant ;
operations, and greater flexibility in the use of the trust funds prior to and during decommissioning. Specific comments that reflect the full range of ,
comments on financial issues are:
Comment a: The proposed Section 50.82(a)(7) proposes to regulate a licensee's use of, and rate of withdrawal from, the decommissioning trust fund. While NRC oversight is warranted to ensure that decommissiening activities can be funded, regulating the rate of withdrawal from the trust fund may i
unnecessarily impede the efficiency of a licensee's decomissioning activities. Since the NRC's generic estimates of decommissioning costs are substantially lower than most recent site-specific cost estimates, licensees l
26 l
l
would be constrained to withdraw small fractions of an unrealistically low estimate.
Response: Limiting initial withdrawals to 23 percent of the generic cost estimate (using the 5 50.75 requirements), until the licensee has submitted a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate, preserves the integrity of the decommissioning trust accounts. lhe final rule permits licensees to withdraw up to 3 percent of the generic formula amount for planning at any time during the decommissioning planning process, including planning that occurs while a This amount should be ample based on current plant is still operating.
Likewise, planning costs for licensees recently undergoing decommissioning.
allowing withdrawals of 20% of the generic amount, for decommissioning activities would allow funding of certain activities prior to receipt of a This amount is consistent with costs of large site-specific cost estimate.
l component removal activities undertaken or contemplated by licensees of Once the NRC has received shutdown plants (i.e., Yankee-Rowe and Trojan).
the site-specific decommissioning cost estimate, a licensee would have access to the balance of trust fund monies for the remaining decommissioning activities. Since the timing of the submittal of a site-specific cost estimate is within the control of the licensee, the Commission believes that final rule.
unwarranted restraints on access to funds are not imposed by the Comment b:
The scope of decommissioning-related activities that licensees may collect funds for should include disposal of icw-level waste generated during operations, maintenance and storage of spent fuel after cessation of operations, costs to maintain an independent spent fuel storage installati 27
and non radioactive demolition or "greenfield." State Public Service l Commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have authorized funding for these activities in some cases because it is in the best interests l i
of the utilities' customers. The NRC regulation should not require ]
segregation of these funds in separate accounts; restrictions on the l 1
withdrawal of trust funds in the proposed rule could lead utilities to create separate trust accounts for each nuclear facility funding coiaponent (e.g.,
decommissioning, spent fuel management, and greenfield). Finally, the rule should allow for the prudent and economic use, at the utility's discretion, of decommissioning trust funds during the years of normal plant operation even before end of life.
Response: The NRC's authority is limited to assuring that licensees adequately decommission their facilities with respect to cleanup and removal of radioactive material prior to license termination. Radiological activities that otherwise go beyond the scope of decommissioning, such as waste generated during operations or demolition costs for "greenfield" restoration, are not appropriate costs to be included in the decommissioning cost estimate. Funds for interim spent fuel storage and maintenance are addressed in i 50.54(bb).
The final rule does not prohibit licensees from having separate sub-accounts for other activities in the decommissioning trust fund, provided the minimum amounts specified in the rule are maintained for radiological decommissioning.
28
e l
Comment c: Paragraph 50.82(7)(ii) of the proposed rule specifies inat a site-specific decommissioning cost esticate must be submitted to the NRC prior to the licensee being permitted to use any funding in excess of previously ,
stipulated amounts. This could be interpreted to mean that the NRC must approve the additional expenditures. If this paragraph is retained, the intent ' 'his " permitting" should be made clear. Expenditures made in accordance with the PSDAR and the decommissioning cost estimate should not require any additional NRC authorization.
Response: The NRC's intent is not to use a formal approval mechanism for decommissioning expenditures once the licensee submits its site-specific decommissioning cost estimate. Thus, the final rule has been modified as l suggested by the commenter.
l l
Comment d: More guidance should be provided regarding what constitutes a decommissioning " planning" expenditure. Also, changes in the proposed rule i
regarding expenditure of funds from the NRC Draft Policy Statement on use of decommissioning funds before decommissioning plan approval (59 FR 5216; l
February 3,1994) should be more fully explained.
Response: The term " planning" used in 6 50.82(a)(7)(ii) specifically means
" paper" studies, and it is not equipment removal. Percentages are used in the final rule rather than specific dollar amounts, as used in the Draft Policy Statement, to better allow for inflation of costs in the future. Other changes to the Draft Policy Statement are based on the responsa to comments, a
f 29 l
developed prior to this rulemaking activity, and presented below in the section on the Resolution of Comments on the Draft Policy Statement.
Comment e: If a plan shuts down early, not only will there be insufficient funds to pay for planned decommissioning (since not all payments will have been made), but the actual cost of decommissioning can be 2 to 3 times higher than planned. The NRC should require external funds in the amount necessary to complete decommissioning upfront. Moreover, the NRC does not have a procedure in place for " replacing" a reactor licensee that goes bankrupt.
Finally, the NRC should specifically allow the total financial approach to be made along the lines of industry self-insurance.
l l Response: The revised regulations preserve the integrity of the decommissioning funds by tying the rate of expenditure to specific parts of the decommissioning process, and at the same time allowing broad flexibility once a licensee submits its site-specific decommissioning cost estimate.
l The issue of bankruptcy, as well as the requirement for power reactor licensees to have the total amount of decommissicning funds upfront, was considered during the development of the current rule and found to be adequately addressed in current requirements. Bankruptcy does not necessarily mean that a power reactor licensee will liquidate. To date, the NRC's experience with bankrupt power reactor licensees has been that they file under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for reorganization, not liquidation (e.g.,
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, El Paso Electric Company, and Cajun Electric Cooperative). In these cases, bankrupt licensees have continued to provide adequate funds for safe operation and decommissioning, even as 30
i l
l l
I Because bondholders and stockholders suffered losses that were often severe.
l electric utilities typically provide an essen. .I service in an exclusive franchise area, the staff believes that, even in the unlikely case of a power reactor licensee liquidating, its service territory and obligations, including those for decommissioning, would revert to another entity without direct NRC intervention. However, the NRC believes that with electric utility deregulation becoming more likely, it may need to require additional decomissioning funding assurance for those licensees that are no longer able to collect full decommissioning costs in rates or set their own rates. Thus, the NRC proposed a rule plan to, in part, evaluate these developments in SECY-95-223 (September 1, 1995).
l l
l i
Issue 8 - Court decision Comment: Most comenters who were in favor of the rule indicated that the proposed rule did not conflict with the recent court decision regarding the Yankee Rowe decommissioning (Citizens Awareness Network. Inc. v. NRC, No. 94-01562, 1st Cir., Decided Juiy 20,1995 ). Most of the comenters who were not in favor of the rule believed that the proposed rule was violating the court's decision regarding Yankee Rowe, or at least the spirit of the decision.
Response: One basis for the court's decision was that it perceived that the Comission had not adequately provided the reasoning for the NRC decision to allow decomissioning activities prior to NRC approval of a licensee-submitted decomissioning plan. The court noted that the Comission had failed to provide either a rulemaking proceeding or a hearing to address what the court 31 I
.. . --. - -- -- . ~ . - - - - . _ _ - - -- ._ _ -- -
By perceived to be NRC approvals of licensee decommissioning activities.
initiation of a notice of proposed rulemaking and solicitation of comment (60 FR 37374), the Commission addressed the reasoning underlying the proposed decommissioning pror.ess and allowed public review and comment on that reasoning.
The final rule includes a public notice and meeting process, prompted by the licensee's submission of a report describing planned decommissioning j activities, to hear public views prior to the licensee undertaking major decommissioning activities. This process specifically provides that licensees may not begin major decommissioning activities until after they have submitted a PSDAR, which will be made available to the public for written comment, and a public meeting is held to hear public views. Finally, the licensee is l
required to submit a license termination plan prior to release of the site.
The final rule specifies that the license termination plan be approved by the NRC through the license amendment process that provides the public with hearing opportunities and that any hearing on that plan must be completed prior to release of the site. This procedural framework assures that those citizens living near the site, potentially for years or decades after the facility is shut down, will have timely input into the decision to release the site, in its decision, the court also specifically raised a concern about decommissioning activities taking place prior to any NEPA analysis. The final rule addresses this issue in several respects. First, the final rule explicitly prohibits the licensee from performing any major decommissioning activity that results in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed, or forecloses release of the sita for possible unrestricted release.
32
Also, when the licensee submits the PSDAR, the licensee must specifically i
include a section discussing how the planned activities fit within the l envelope of environmental effects included in either the FGEIS (NUREG-0586, August 1988) or the facility's site-specific environmental impact statement.
Moreover, the licensee must provide written notification if the intended decommissioning activities are inconsistent with the PSDAR. This requirement will help ensure that, after submittal and public comment on the PSDAR, any changes to the planned decommissioning activities continue to be enveloped by the assessment of environmental impacts in prior environmental reviews. Any activities not meeting the environmental criteria would require the licensee to prepare an amendment to the license and a supplement to its environmental l
report under 10 CFR Part 51. Finally, the rule requires a formal license termination plan by the licensee, which must be approved by the NRC via a j
I license amendment, which will follow NRC procedures for amendments, including applicable hearing rights (under either Subpart L or Subpart G of ,
10 CFR Part 2, as specified in the rule) and preparation of environmental assessments.
The court perceived that the agency " approval" of the expenditure of ,
funds from the decommissioning funds may be a basis for triggering both NEPA reviews and hearing rights. The final rule addresses this issue by providing generic guidance as to what expenditures can be made out of the decommissioning fund for decommissioning activities prior to submittal of a site-specific cost estimate. The revised regulations use generic criteria for expenditures from the decommissioning funds and do not require prior NRC approval of site-specific expenditures meeting the generic criteria (see 5 50.82(a)(7)). These new provisions specifically require licensees to 33
maintain sufficient funds for release of the site and termination of the license. The licensee will have to also include an updated, site-specific analysis of remaining costs in the license termination plan submittal.
In summary, the Commission, in publishing this final rule, has explained the rationale for the new decommissioning process, and concludes that nothing in the court decision dictates that the Commission take a specific approach to this issue or otherwise raises questions concerning the validity of the l approach adopted in this rulemaking.
l Issue 9 - Definitions I
Comment: Regarding the definitions in 5 50.2, a few commenters indicated that the definition of decommissioning should include the concept of restricted release to accommodate the proposed rulemaking on acceptable residual radioactive criteria for decommissioning. Also, several commenters noted that the definitions of " major radioactive components" and " major decommissioning j activities" were unnecessary because the use of the existing 5 50.59 process l
does not require such considerations and is adequate to deal with decommissioning activities. However, if a definition must be kept, it should only be relevant to any components that when dismantled for shipment contain greater than class C waste because, during decommissioning activities, such waste disposals have the greatest significance regarding environmental impacts and adequate funding; and is unrelated to the physical size of components.
l
)
! Response: When the residual radiation criteria rule is final, the 1
34 l
. _ . - . . . - . . .. ._= - .- . .. -
definition of decommissioning in 5 50.2 will address use of the restricted release. It is necessary to have definitions of " major radioactive components" and " major decommissioning activities" to clarify what decommissioning activities may not occur prior to the end of the 90-day waiting period.
Issue 10 - Modifications to Specific Technical Requirements Commer.t: Most of the commenters addressing thi:, issue were in favor of the rule and indicated that there should be additional elimination or modification of requirements beyond those presented in the proposed rule. There was a spectrum of views on this issue: if a risk analysis were performed, it would demonstrate that the proposed rule would impose unnecessary burden on NRC licensees and NRC resources without commensurate benefit to health and safety; appropriate technical specifications for decommissioning would be for those activities for which there is a significant hazard; the final rule should include a discussion of the logic (i.e., philosophy) in making conforming revisions to Part 50, especially with respect to provisions that did not change (e.g., il 50.55a, 50.63, 50.72, and 50.73 applicability); the study and survey by the NRC concerning additional amendments for non-applicability should be completed before this rule is finalized (one commenter); and that the proposed rule appears geared to permanently shut down reactors with fuel onsite and does not differentiate among the aspects that apply once fuel is removed from the site, and the rule should consider such situations. Finally, one commenter requested that environmental qualifications remain in place for 35
equipment important to safety pertaining to spent fuel management and storage.
Response: This rulemaking is primarily directed toward the procedural process for decommissioning, with particular emphasis on premature closure situations.
The modifications to technical requirements in the final rule are based on a consequence analysis that either leads to elimination of the requirement or extends its applicability to decommissioning.
The modifications to the technical requirements in the final rule are incomplete, as noted in the proposed rule, and as the information base continues to develop, additional rulemaking to modify other rule requirements will be conducted. In the interim, licensees that no longer have fuel onsite may continue to request exemption for specific requirements on a case-by-case basis. The information base will address the storage of high-density packaging of hot spent fuel in the spent fuel pool with special consideration given to potential radiological consequences that could occur from loss of coolant in the pool. Consideration for amending rule requirements is also being given to situations in which the fuel is in dry storage at a_n ISFSI.
Comments on specific amendments were:
Comment: Part 26 - The final rule should explicitly state that the fitness for duty program does not apply to a permanently shut down and defueled facility; if it must apply, then it should apply to persons with unescorted access to the fuel storage building or buildings containing equipment necessary for the safe storage and handling of spent fuel.
36
l l
Response: Until further analysis is completed regarding risks associated with the presence of spent fuel onsite, this requirement will continue to apply.
Section 50.36 - Criteria are needed to ensure that technical Comment: 1 1
specifications are appropriate for the conditions of a plant in a defueled state; the four criteria specified in i 50.59(e) would be appropriate l additional guidance.
l l
Response: Consideration will be given at a later time to the development of additional guidance in the form of standardized technical specifications for decommissioning. However, licensees may apply for modification of their technical specifications on a case-by-case basis.
l l
i Comment: Paragraphs 50.36(c)(6) and (e) - These requirements, which appear to imply that a new set of technical specifications will be developed for the plant decommissioning phase, are redundant and should be eliminated because 1 5 50.51(b)(2), the requirement to conduct activities in accordance with the specific Part 50 license for the facility, is sufficient to ensure effectiveness of the technical specifications.
l l
Response: As a reactor facility transitions from operational to decommissioning status, numerous changes to technical specifications are expected. The regulatory experience with revisions to the technical specifications during this transition period has entailed case- specific evaluations of individual licensee requests. This has resulted in some inconsistency and variability of expectations among shutdown reactor facility 37
license requirements. This revision provides the basis for developing a consistent framework for the development of " standardized technical specifications for decorraissioning," as well as addresses the uncertainty regarding the applicability of the existing regulation to permanently shutdown reactors. Section 50.51 specifically addresses the continued effectiveness of f expired licenses and limitation of licensee actions during any continued effectiveness period. As such, 5 50.51 does not, nor is it intended to, provide specific license conditions and requirements. Section 50.36 addresses this issue. !
l l
Comment: Paragraph 50.36a(a)(1) - This requirement should be clarified and revised because radioactive waste systems will have to be removed prior to license termination, and the present wording appears to require that these systems be used and maintained. Moreover, temporary systems are typically used for effluent treatment and the rule should be modified to describe only those systems that are appropriate.
Response: Paragraph 50.36a(1) is intended to ensure that operating procedures I
for any waste treatment systems used to control effluents be maintained and used to existing release criteria, and not that the systems be used and 1
- maintained when no longer necessary. Thus, the only part of the amendment requiring change is that part dealing with the use of temporary equipment.
The amendment has been changed to explicitly indicate that either permanent or temporary systems must 4
comply.
38
i, il i .
Comment: Section 50.47 - The emergency preparedness requirements for a l
defueled plant that has ceased operation warrants a material reduction in the scope of its offsite emergency planning because the credibility of any offsite consequences are reduced, beyond the spent fuel pool, there is not sufficient source term to justify emergency plans. This also pertains to Appendix E to Part 50 and the requirements in 5 50.54(t) concerning periodic review (frequency and scope) of the licensee's emergency preparedness program.
Response: Consideration of the potential radiological consequences of hot, ;
high-density packaged fuel in the spent fuel pool is still ongoing.
Modifications to this requirement, if made, will be developed at a later time.
Comment: Section 50.48 - While some commenters agreed with the concept of a fire protection plan through the end of decommissioning, one found the This commenter proposed language overly restrictive, vague, and ambiguous.
stated that once the permanently removed spent fuel is certified to no longer be a fire protection concern, an industrial fire protection program could be adequate in most cases. Also, several other commenters noted that there are other ongoing NRC activities to improve current fire protection regulations, and if actions are taken now, they should only be based on "significant hazards" considerations.
Response: These modified requirements have been coordinated with ongoing NRC Also, activities regarding the improvement of fire protection regulations.
As presently see the response to i 50.47 regarding spent fuel considerations.
configured, fire protection regulations apply only to operating reactor 39 l
l l
facilities. The need for an ongoing fire protection program, albeit a modified one, remains after the facility has ceased reactor operations. The l
l final rule provides a performance-based program that can readily be modified during the decommissioning process to address residual hazards.
Comment: Section 50.49 - Concerning the environmental qualifications requirement of electronic equipment in a shutdown and defueled facility, electric equipment required for protection of spent fuel outside the reactor l does not meet the definition of equipment defined by 5 50.49(b). The 1
discussion in the final rule should be corrected to note that the environmental qualifications regulations apply to selected safety and non-1 safety related equipment as described in 5 50.49(b).
L Response: No modifications to the rule are necessary. However, we agree that the environmental qualifications regulations apply to selected safety and l
non-safety related equipment as described in 5 50.49(b).
l l Comment: Section 50.51 - 5 50.51(b) should be deleted because it is redundant. If it is kept, the requirements on the continuation of a license l
should be clarified to affirm that other operating reactors would be l unaffected when the operating license of one reactor has been terminated at a l l
multi-reactor site. Also, it should be clarified in 5 50.51(b)(1) that at !
sites that have an intervening reuse but do not require decontamination to unrestricted release, this decontamination would not need to occur until the
, end of the reuse period.
40
Response: Section 50.51(b) is not redundant and will not be deleted because the section explicitly clarifies that a license that has expired is not terminated until the Commission terminates it, and this section further clarifies what conditions prevail under such circumstances. At a multi-reactor site, each reactor is individually licensed and actions are applied accordingly. The final rule addressing the radiological criteria for decommissioning will address the issue of restricted release options. Under the proposed rule, such restrictions would have to ensure that members of the public, in the event the restrictions fail, would not receive a dose in excess of 100 mrem per year. Unless the facility remained under license, individuals having access to the facility would be considered members of the public.
Comment: Paragraph 50.54(g) - The antitrust law requirements for a reactor that has permanently ceased operations and permanently defueled should be reevaluated for applicability.
Response: Paragraph 50.54(g) is a general antitrust requirement specified in the Atomic Energy Act that remains valid until the license is terminated, and it does not depend on whether the reactor has permanently ceased operations and been permanently defueled.
Comment: Paragraphs 50.54(i), (k), (1), and (m) - The requirement for licensed operators should be eliminated or reduced because reactivity changes can only occur during the initial stages of decommissioning in connection with repositioning fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool. Also, with reference to 5 50.54(i), the scope of the operator requalification program and limitations 41
on a licensee's freedom to modify it should be reduced at facilities undergoing decommissioning.
Response: Consideration of these issues is ongoing and may result in future rulemaking.
Comment: Paragraph 50.54(w) - Onsite property damage insurance for a facility undergoing decommissioning should be eliminated or substantially modified.
Response: Consideration of the potential radiological consequences of hot, high-density packaged fuel in the spent fuel pool is still ongoing.
Modifications to this requirement, if made, will be developed at a later time.
1 Comment: Section 50.55a - Pertaining to codes and standards requirements, it l should be noted that il 50.55a(a), (f), and (g), inservice testing requirements, do not apply to permanently defueled reactors because the plant is not operating and there is no need to apply the regulation.
Response: No change is necessary because these requirements provide assurance that relevant portions of the facility are maintained functional or operational to adequate standards so they are operationally capable.
Comment: Section 50.63 - The requirements on the loss of all ac power should not apply to decommissioning because the potential for significant radiological consequences is very low (there is a low probability of incident and long recovery time).
42
1 i
l l
\
i Response: Consideration of the potential radiological consequences of hot, l
high-density packaged fuel in the spent fuel pool is still ongoing.
Modifications to this requirement, if made, will be developed at a later time, I
as will include considerations of fuel stored in an ISFSI.
l 1
Comment: Section 50.65 - Monitoring maintenance for a permanently shutdown and defueled facility on any of its structures, systems, or components (SSC) to levels required by the current maintenance rule is unnecessary.
Permanently shutdown and defueled facilities can no longer experience the levels of mechanical stresses associated with an operating plant. Therefore, the industry interprets the oreposed rule to mean that the maintenance program l
only applies to the safe storage of fuel. The relative risks from a shutdown plant allow requirements in existing technical specifications and other administrative programs to provide adequate assurance for safe fuel storage.
Resoonse: The maintenance rule, 5 50.65, requires that the performance or condition of all structures, systems, and components (SSCs) described in i 50.65(b) be included in the scope of the rule. Under the current rule, licensees are permitted flexibility in the goals that are established and the l monitoring that is performed for these SSCs. However, that flexibility does not include the elimination of goal setting and monitoring or any other requirement of the rule. The staff agrees that the stresses on most SSCs in i
an operating plant are greater than those associated with a shutdown and defueled plant. That is why the final rule allows the scope to be limited to those SSCs associated with the storage, control, and maintenance of spent fuel 43 l
in a safe condition, in a manner that provides reasonable assurance that such SSCs are capable of performing their intended function.
1 Comment: Section 50.72 - The immediate notification requirements for l 1
l operating nuclear power reactors should not apply to permanently defueled reactors or, if applicable, should be significantly modified. Regarding 5 50.72(a)(i), there should be no requirement to use the Emergency Notification Sy. tem or Emergency Response Data Systems, f
i l
Response: The NRC did not adopt this comment. Notification requirements for events such as abnormal releases and overexposures are examples of required reports that are necessary.
Comment: Section 50.111 - Criminal penalties should not be imposed for decommissioning activities because they are not so important to public health and safety that licensees need be subject to them; they should not be treated l
any differently than other radioactive material licensees.
Response: As noted in the proposed rule, the Commission believes that certain actions are essential in initiating the decommissioning process (e.g.,
certifying to permanent cessation of operation and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel, and submitting a PSDAR). Decommissioning actions, when initiated improperly, have a potential for significant consequences regarding health, safety, and the environment. The final rule includes this provision.
1 44 l
l l
[
1 g Comment: Section 140.11 - Concerning Price Anderson financial protection, permanently shutdown and defueled facility licensees should be permitted to withdraw frca the secondary financial protection layer, and single units should be given a reduction in the primary level of coverage (e.g.,
$100,000,000).
Response: Consideration of the potential radiological consequences of hot, high-density packaged fuel in the spent fuel pool is still ongoing.
Modifications to this requirement, if made, will be developed at a later time, as will considerations of fuel stored in an ISFSI.
Issue 10 - Termination of License Requirements i
Most of the commenters in favor of the rule supported the decommissioning I requirements for termination of the license in the proposed rule. However, several of these commenters stated that approval of the license termination plan should not require an amendment or opportunity for a hearing; if the plan ;
1 is made available for public comment, the existing regulations provide ample opportunity for public participation, and the AEA does not require a hearing.
Another commenter noted that once the spent fuel is off the site, the hazard is reduced so there is no safety, technical, or legal basis for NRC approval of a detailed decommissioning plan or PSDAR. A commu ter pointed out that the use of the proposed i 50.59, which includes the four criteria (! 50.59(e)),
, addresses the unique circumstances associated with the decommissioning l
activities: If some activities do not satisfy the requirements of 5 50.59 and a license amendment is required, interested parties would have an opportunity i
s to request a hearing; the approval of the plan by amendment and the 45 l
l l
l
i oppori. unity for a hearing are not for reasons of health and safety; moreover, I
any interested party could always petition for a hearing under i 2.206.
Another commenter made similar comments and went even further in stating that if standards for radioactive release are clear, meeting the objective of terminating the license should be easily demonstrated without the need for l approval of a plan or license amendment; and that the plan should be available to the NRC for information only. i Response: The requirement for submittal of a termination plan is retained in i
i the final rule because the NRC must make decisions (as required in the current rule on the decommissioning plan) regarding (1) the licensee's plan for assuring that adequate funds will be available for final site release, (2) radiation release criteria for license termination, and (3) adequacy of the A
final survey required to verify that these release criteria have been met.
public meeting is considered necessary at the license termination stage to 1
inform the public about the licensee's proposed termination activities and t6 provide an opportunity for hearing on NRC's decision regarding thi licensee's proposed termination activities, as required under the Administrative Procedures Act.
i Specific comments concerning the license termination plan by several commenters were:
Comment a: The timing of the license termination plan is not explicit in the proposed rule, 5 50.82(a)(8), and it is not clear whether the rule permits 46
l dismantlement activities before submittal or approval of the license termination plan.
Response: The final rule permits dismantlement activities 90 days after PSDAR submittal, unless NRC interposes an objection. Moreover, the license
! termination plan must be submitted within two years of the licensee's expected date of license termination (the date specified in the PSDAR or supplement).
! Comment b: The NRC does not explain or support the need for the elements of I
the plan, discussed in 5 50.82(a)(8)(ii)(A)-(G). The current rule, under i 50.82(d), simply requires updated, detailed plans before the start of decommissioning.
l l
Response: Most of the elements of the license termination plan are the same I as those currently required in the decommissioning plan, under 5 50.82(b),
taking into account an update to allow for a storage period, if necessary, and remediation aspects that could involve license termination under either unrestricted or restricted release conditions (once the rulemaking on acceptable residual release criteria is final). The site characterization, description of the remaining dismantlement activities, and plans for site remediation are necessary for the NRC to be sure that the licensee will have l adequate funds to complete decommissioning and that the appropriate actions will be completed by the licensee to ensure that the public health and safety will be protected.
47
Comment c: One commenter questioned how multiple sites will be addressed, and another commenter stated that a single license termination plan should be encouraged for multi-reactor sites.
Response: Reactors at a multi-reactor site are individually licensed and I licensing actions are applied to the individual licenses. A licensee would not be prohibited from submitting a sirgle license termination plan for the multi-reacter site, but the NRC would addren terminating each license l separately.
l Additional comments on license termination issues were:
Comment: Concerning the issue of a hearing when the licensee submits the license termination plan for approval, a commenter stated that the need for such a hearing should be reconsidered. If the licensee meets the requirements of the termination plan and applicable regulations there would be no issues to l
adjudicate. Another commenter stated that, concerning the Subpart L proceedings, the NRC should issue a clear statement of policy to eliminate the potential for significant litigation. Several commenters stated that if j l
' Subpart L is to be used for hearings, it appears necess:ry to change the title of Subpart L to include Part 50 licensees. Finally, a commenter stated that the applicability of Subpart L hearings should be incorporated into i 2.700 as 4
well as 5 2.1201.
Response: With respect to the termination plan, the Commission recognizes that ongoing rulemaking proceedings may result in establishing criteria for 48
the restricted release of sites. Even if a hearing is not legally mandated at the termination stage as argued by some commenters, the Commission views it as appropriate to use the amendment process for approval of termination plans, including the associated opportunity for a hearing, to allow public participation on the specific actions required for license termination. In particular, the Commission has determined that, if a hearing is requested on the termination plan, the hearing must be completed prior to release of the site. This action will help ensure meaningful public input on any proposal for restricted release of the site. Given that a lengthy period (up to 60 years) may pass between the PSDAR stage and the termination stage, and given that final release criteria are still being developed that may include restricted release of a site, the Commission views a license amendment process as appropriate, along with the associated opportunity for a hearing, whether or not such hearings are mandated by legislation. Finally, the rule changes proposed by the commenters, concerning the change of title of Subpart L to include Part 50 licensees and the incorporation of Subpart L applicability into il 2.700 and 2.1201, are unnecessary because the rule already addresses I such considerations.
l Comment: Many commenters expressed confusion on when a Subpart L or Subpart G hearing would be appropriate. One commenter noted that once fuel is out of the reactor vessel and in dry storage, there is no difference between storage on or offsite and that reference to the Subpart G hearing should be deleted.
Another commenter wanted a clarification of what is meant by removing fuel t
from the site (i.e. under a Part 72 license). Another commenter suggested that the wording to 5 2.1201(a)(3) be c:arified concerning permanent removal 49
of fuel from the site to an authorized facility. One commenter inquired as to whether a license could be terminated if the licensee removed the fuel to an onsite ISFSI.
Response: The final rule clearly indicates that once the fuel is removed from the licensed Part 50 site, the power reactor facility can be treated as a Otherwise, if materials facility where a Subpart L hearing is appropriate.
fuel will remain onsite, a Subpart G hearing is appropriate. If the fuel is in an ISFSI, that part of the affected site is regulated under a Part 72 The license, and would no longer be regulated under the Part 50 license.
wording in i 2.1201(a)(3) is appropriate and means a facility not under the Part 50 license.
Comment: Many commenters did not see the need for an environmental review at the license termination stage, and one suggested that it be considered a categorical exclusion. Another commenter stated that if there were to be an environmental review, its scope should be restricted to whether the licensee's controls and methods for mitigation of radiation will meet the standards adopted in 5 20.1405 of the proposed residual radiation criteria rule.
Response: At the license termination stage, an environmental assessment or Pending impact statement will be required when the license is amended.
resolution of another ongoing NRC rulemaking activity that is considering adoption of radiological release criteria a categorical exclusion may be adopted that would eliminate the requirement for an environmental assessment or impact analysis, except in the case of a restricted release of a site.
50
Comment: There were a few comments pertaining to proposed changes to i 51.53 l
l concerning requirements for environmental impact considerations. One l
commenter stated that the first sentence of the first phrase of i 51.53 should be deleted to be consistent with the concept that "a license amendment l
authorizing decommissioning activities" is no longer required. Revised wording should begin with "each applicant for a license amendment approving a i
license termination plan or decommissioning plan." Another commenter stated 1
that i 51.53 should be revised to reflect the fact the proposed rule, if adopted, would nnt require an amendment that authorizes the conduct of decommissioning activities, since neither the existing nor the proposed decommissioning process requires a license amendment to approve a decommissioning plan. Therefore the first paragraph of this section should be reworded as "[E]ach applicant for license termination upon submittal of the license termination plan under 5 50.82 of this chapter either for unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to the site, ... shall submit ..." A similar change was stated to be needed in 151.95 for the same '
~
reasons. Finally, a commenter noted that 5 51.53(b) as well as t 51.95(b) refer to " applicants ... for a utilization facility," which does not seem to be an element of the proposed rule and should be deleted; also, 5 51.95(b) does not mention approval of a license amendment for license termination or a decommissioning plan, which is an omission and should be consistent with iSl.53(b).
Response: No change was made to this section because the non-power reactor i
facilities are still required to submit a decommissioning plan. For non-power reactors, the current rule remains essentially unchanged and requires l 51 l
1 1
l <
submittal of a decommissioning plan that is approved through license amendment. The non-power reactor licensee must also submit an appropriate supplemental environmental report and the NRC must do an EA as part of the decommissioning plan approval process.
t l
l Comment: Most of the commenters who were not in favor of the rule supported
! the decommissioning license termination phase requirements but believe that these requirements were not timely and should be implemented in some manner at the decommissioning initiation phase.
Response: During the initial phase of decommissioning, the requirements in the final rule are designed to provide oversight comparable to the existing rule, while providing additional opportunity for public comment on the licensee's proposed activities. The final rule requirements are based on NRC's experience with licensees' use of the 1 50.59 process during operations and consideration of the types of activities that licensees would undertake during the decommissioning process. Where appropriate, licensing requirements 1
are continued through decommissioning and the NRC is informed of each licensee's planned decommissioning activities. (Additional discussion can be found in the response to comment 5).
I Issue 11 - Regulatory Guides l
Comment: There were several commenter requests for regulatory guidance in the i
form of regulatory guides. These pertained to a standard format and content for the PSDAR and license termination plan as well as to transition guidance 52 l
i i
for licensees who are shut a un and chose to adopt to the new process.
Additional guidance was also requested for a regulatory guide that dealt with the decommissioning process, such as a revision to Regulatory Guide 1.86,
" Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors," that would include such topics as the objective and implementation aspects of public meeting and hearings, guidance on issues the NRC would consider in not giving negative consent approval to the PSDAR after the 90-day waiting period, guidance on interpretation and development of technical rule requirements, and guidance, on the particulars of "grandfathering." Additionally, there were several l comenter requests for additional financial guidance, through a regulatory guide, on the development and use of the decommissioning trust fund.
Response: The NRC intends to issue regulatory guidance on the initial phase of decommissioning, and guidance on the standard format and content of the PSDAR will be issued after the final rule is published. Other guidance on the j decommissioning license termination phase is also being developed, n
issue 12 - Elimination of the Possession-only License Amendment (POLA)
Coment: Generally, comenters in favor of the rule agreed with eliminating the POLA. Objections to POLA elimination from other commenters were that distinct categories between reactor operation and cessation of operation should be maintained, that eliminating the POLA process would eliminate a hearing opportunity prior to reactor decommissioning. Along similar lines, and reflecting the views of many commenters against POLA elimination, a State commenter said that by deletinn the POLA we would eliminate the amendment l
53
. __ -- .. . . ~_ - - - -- . . - - - - _ _ - . . . - - . . - .-
1 process that expressly provides for State consultation (50.91(b)) and that no Subpart G hearing process would occur that would allow for discovery by parties to the proceeding and provide a mechanism for intervention. The State commenter held that the proposed rule delays the need for amendment to the license termination stage when is too late; it is needed before major decommissioning activities are undertaken; moreover, at the license l
termination stage, only a Subpart L hearing is proposed (no discovery).
Finally, a few commenters asked why non-power reactors, which are less hazardous facilities (smaller and less contaminated), can still request a POLA and still require decommissioning plan approval while power reactors no longer have this, option or requirement.
Response: If fuel is removed from the licensed Part 50 site, the activities undertaken during decommissioning are more like the kinds of activities undertaken at a typical materials facility, where the Subpart L process applies. The final rule requires that certain procedures be satisfied before a licensee can perform major decommissioning activities, procedures such as requiring a PSDAR submittal, conducting a public meeting, and allowing a specified time period for NRC review of the licensee's intended actions.
Other final rule requirements prohibit the licensee from performing any major decommissioning activity that could result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed, or foreclose release of the site for unrestricted use. Written notification to the NRC is required for licensee i
decommissioning activities that are inconsistent with those described in the PSDAR, including significant changes in decommissioning costs. Finally, the j
final rule extends certain regulatory requirements to decommissioning. Thus, 54
- - _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._m____
licensee activities that would require approval under a POLA are no longer f
I necessary. The affected State (s) will be notified about the public information meeting as well as consulted on the licensee's planned decommissioning activities by the NRC prior to the public meeting. Also, the i
final rule requires that a copy of the PSDAR and any written notification of inconsistent PSDAR activities be sent to the affected State (s). In response l to the comment concerning why non-power reactors are still given the option of submitting a POLA and still require a decommissioning plan, it is noted that l
I such reactors are required to immediately dismantle, except for extenuating circumstances, and are not permitted a storage period (because there is no significant health, safety or environmental reason for delay - see FGEIS,
! NUREG 0586).
l Issue 13 - "Grandfathering" Considerations l Comment: There were several commenters who were concerned that the proposed rule did not significantly address nor provide necessary guidance for "grandfathering" issues. Specific comments in this area were that recognition should be given to those plants whose decommissioning plans have been approved on a case-by-case basis; that if existing facilities are grandfathered from any part of the proposed rule, it should clearly identify this; that the proposed rule does not adequately implement the grandfathering option because the old i 50.82 would disappear from the rule and no explicit provisions would exist to rely on, and it is suggested that the NRC keep the old provision as well as an applicable alternative; that for grandfathering, an implementation should be added to the rule in a fashion similar to 5 20.1008. It was also 55
l 1
- noted by several commenters that guidance needs to be given to those licensees who are in various aspects of decommissioning based on the current rule requirements and wish to switch to the proposed rule requirements.
1 3
Response: In response to the comments, the Commission has reconsidered the issue of "grandfathering" and has concluded that all licensees must comply 1
with the provisions of the final rule when it becomes effective. For power reactor licensees who, prior to the effective date of the rule, either submitted a decommissioning plan for approval or possess an approved plan, the 4
! plan will be considered as the PSOAR submittal and the licensee will be permitted to perform decommissioning in conformance with these final rule requirements. Any requirements necessary for this PSDAR conversion, such as a public meeting or permitting the licensee to use the 5 50.59 process for performing major decommissioning activities, will be considered on a case-specific basis by the NRC. For licensees undergoing a hearing prior to this rule becoming effective, conversion to the new rule will not be permitted until the hearing process is completed. -
With regard to extending current rule requirements for "grandfathering" considerations, no current rule requirements need be retained because the transition from the existing requirements for approval of a submitted decommissioning or approved plan, as described above, is specific to existing licensee decommissioning plan situations.
Issue 14 - Miscellaneous Comments 56
4 4
Comment: Several commenters stated that the backfit rule, 5 50.109, should apply to decommissioning because a proper reading of the intent of that rule should cover rulemaking dea*q with decommissioning. Otherwise, additional i
requirements could be impo.,s., without a benefit cost analysis.
i!
Response: The Commission has concluded that the provisions addressed in this rulemaking do not involve a backfit because they address only reactors that have permanently ceased operations, while i 50.109 only applies to design, construction and operation of a facility. Further, even if these actions l
e
' were considered to be within the definition of "backfit" under 5 50.109, the final rule provides appropriate grandfathering provisions for those licensees who have commenced decommissioning activities under previously applicable a
regulations, assuring that no change (other than procedural) in licensees 1
a
- ongoing activities would be imposed on a licensee by these regulations. )
Finally, these regulations are primarily procedural in nature and, to the j extent they address nonprocedural matters, they are a relaxation of existing i
j requirements or are a codification of requirements already exiting through i
Commission precedent. Thus, no new or different regulatory burdens are !
l 4
l imposed on licensees' operations by this final rule that would meet the 1
l definition of a backfit as defined in i 50.109.
l i A few commenters noted that in the regulatory analysis for the
' Comment:
' proposed rule, the alternatives tc the proposed new regulatory requirements were not evaluated; existing requirements do not require a license termination l-The plan or a license amendment to approve a license termination plan.
57
. - . _ _ . . ~ . . . _ - - - - . __ . - - - ~. . - - - - - . . - - _- . - .-
regulatory analysis does not accomplish the objective of ensuring that all regulatory burdens are needed, justified, and minimal.
Response: Only significant changes from the existing rule were considered in the regulatory analysis. The license termination plan is not really a new l
l requirement, because under the existing rule, licensees are required to submit a proposed decommissioning plan for approval within two years of permanent l
shutdown. Currently, licensees who plan to delay decomissioning by including a period of storage must su' omit a final decomissioning plan for approval prior to the start -of decomissioning. Current NRC policy is to approve the decomissioning plan by license amendment. The changes adopted in the rulemaking primarily provide additional flexibility to licensees which reduces burden without reducing safety by allowing licensen to undertake the majority of decomissioning activities without first obtaining NRC approval. Under such circumstances, there is no need for the kind of detailed regulatory analysis that is needed when new requirements are being imposed.
Comment: Several commenters wanted the option of entombment to be allowed because restricted release will be allowed when the residual radiation criteria rule is final. Aside from the difficulty of disposal, the money not spent on LLW burial is substantiai, the interest on which would be more than i adequate to provide for the maintenance and surveillance required for the 1
- entombment option. Also, the public may be interested, including local l
comunities, in not transporting waste across state boundaries and in keeping the funds that would otherwise be spent on disposal within the community.
l 58 l
l l
l
Response
The NRC position on entombment is the samerule, as in the current entombment would only be permitted for very special circumstances b would involve a continued license on a case-by-case basis .
The concept of restricted release included in the proposed rule on residual radi ti a on criteria would involve termination of the license n place with rest to limit the use of the facility by the public
, but certain radiological criteria for restricted release would have to be met .
Commenti Several individual commenters wanted to know wheth es allow the optional period of storage of the reactoro facility t be longer than 60 years, and does the 60-year completion date for oning decommissi specified in the current rule consider storage of fuel in an ISFSI .
One commenter stressed that spent fuel should not be separated from any of the phases of decommissioning because this is a piecemealnappropriate. approach and i Another commenter stated that, for dry cask storage
, the licensee should be required to maintain capability to handle the fuel .
Response
The primary considerations of the proposed rule ral, were procedu with emphasis on the issue of premature closure .
Other aspects of the existing rule were unchanged.
A 60-year time period for completion of decommissioning is still imposed, ubject to other considerations delineated in the current rule requirements.
Also, the existing rule, as well as the proposed one, consider the storage and maintenance of spent fuel as an operational consideration and provide separate Parts. 50 requirement Once spent fuel is in an ISFSI and can be transported without the requirement for 59
Response: The NRC position on entombment is the same as in the current rule, entombment would only be permitted for very special circumstances but would involve a continued license on a case-by-case basis. The concept of restricted release included in the proposed rule on residual radiation criteria would involve termination of the license with restrictions in place to limit the use of the facility by the public, but certain radiological criteria for restricted release would have to be met.
l l
Comment: Several individual commenters wanted to know whether NRC rules allow l
the optional period of storage of the reactor facility to be longer than 60 years, and does the 60-year completion date for decommissioning specified in l
the current rule consider storage of fuel in an ISFSI. One commenter stressed 1
that spent fuel should not be separated from any of the phases of i
decommissioning because this is a piecemeal approach end inappropriate.
Another commenter stated that, for dry cask storage, the licensee should be l
! required to maintain capability to handle the fuel.
Response: The primary considerations of the proposed rule were procedural, ,
l .
with emphasis on the issue of premature closure. Other aspects of the existing rule were unchanged. A 60-year time period for completion of decommissioning is still imposed, subject to other considerations delineated in the current rule requirements. Also, the existing rule, as well as the proposed one, consider the storage and maintenance of spent fuel as an Once operational consideration and provide separate Part 50 requirements.
spent fuel is in an ISFSI and can be transported without the requirement for
[
59
It spent fuel pool availability, assuming the remaining radioactive waste can be disposed of offsite, the Part 50 license can be terminated.
Comment: Several commenters noted that the requirements of this proposed rule and the proposed residual radiation rule should be coordinated to avoid redundancy.
Response: The two rules will be coordinated.
Comment: A few commenters noted that a complete site characterization should be included at the initiation of decommissioning activities, and that l mandatary site radiological surveys should be required before issuing a new license to establish background conditions.
l l
Response: These considerations are being addressed during finalization of the residual radioactivity release criteria rule.
Comment: Finally, several commenters requested that the NRC consider the proposed " safeguards for$ nuclear fuel or high level radioactive waste" rule (60 FR 42079) (which affects Parts 60, 72, 73, and 75) impacts on this proposed rule when finalized.
Response. This rule is primarily directed toward the procedural requirements necessary for power reactor decommissionings. Because of this, the requirements imposed by this rule can be treated independently from the other 60 l
l l
a That rule, when final, may modify some
" safeguards" rule under development.
of the technical requirements imposed by this final rule.
i I
Resolution o' mments on the Draft Policy Statement i
On February 3,1994, the NRC published in the Federal Reaister (59 FR f
5216) a draft policy statement and accompanying criteria relating to power reactor licensee use of decommissioning trust funds before NRC approval of licensees' decommissioning plans. This resolution of comments was developed Since the draft policy statement prior to the present rulemaking activities.
was published in 1994, some additional changes have been made in the final The NRC rule, as discussed earlier in the section on Response to Comments.
l received comments on the draft policy statement from the following individuals or organizations:
1
- 1. Michigan Department of Commerce i a 2. Citizens Awareness Network i
1
' 3. Mary P. Sinclair
- 4. Detroit Edison Company f
- 5. Committee for a Safe Energy Future l
s J
- 6. Jon Block
- 7. Nuclear Energy Institute
- 8. Yankee Atomic Electric Company i]
- 9. Virginia Power Company
- 10. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 4
- 11. Winston & Strawn 61
1
- 12. Consolidated Edison Company
- 13. Maryland Department of the Environment 14.1U Electric Company The public interest group, individual commenters and one State oppose allowing any withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds before the NRC approves a licensee's decommissioning plan. The other commenters generally support the draft policy statement, although they disagree with certain provisions or take issue with the need for it. Specific comments and observations, and the NRC analysis of and response to them, are discussed below.
Specific comments:
Comment 1: The trust agreements may need to be modified to include low level radioactive waste storage and disposal (LLW) and interim spent fuel storage as allowable decommissioning costs when these costs are incurred as part of additional, temporary facilities at particular sites. LLW disposal costs, in particular, should be able to be paid from the decommissioning waste fund without waiting 60 days for NRC approval. Also, provisions should be included for decommissioning nonradioactive structures associated with the reactor.
(Commenters 1 and 4) 62
Response
1 l
As provided in 10 CFR 50.75, financial assurance for decommissioning includes the cost of disposal of LLW associated with reactor operation. If a temporary facility is built to store LLW under the Part 50 reactor license, the trust agreement should already be structured to include these costs.
l Although the NRC definition of decommissioning excludes interim storage of l
spent reactor fuel, a licensee is required to provide for the cost of interim spent fuel storage under 10 CFR 50.54(bb). The NRC also excludes from its 1
definition of decommissioning the cost of demolition and disposal of nonradioactive structures and restoration of the site to "greenfield" condition. However, NRC regulationsdo not preclude licensees and their rate regulators from providing for these costs and depositing any collected funds in decommissioning trusts as long as the decommissioning trusts have segregated sub-accounts indicating the NRC-required amount for radiological decommissioning. The NRC understands that several licensees are currently j
using this approach.
1 With respect to the issue of waiving the 60-day NRC approval period for 1
withdrawals to pay for LLW shipments, the NRC believes that it should keep the approval period for permanently shut down plants for the reasons discussed in the response to issue 8, below. This issue will be considered separately for operating plants as discussed in issue 3, below.
Comment 2: The NRC should not allow decommissioning trust fund withdrawals before an environmental assessment is performed while the reactor licensee has a possession-only license because (1) it will allow large-scale 63
- .-- -- -. _ _ = . - - . - - _-
decommissioning activities without a resident NRC inspector on-site during the removal of irradiated components, (2) it is inconsistent with the mandate of the NRC, which is to implement a submitted, reviewed, publicly evaluated, and approved decommissioning plan before large-scale decommissioning activities begin, (3) the health and safety of the workers and the public can not be adequately served by the experimental process of the component removal process, and (4) existing NRC regulations state that a licensee may only conduct limited activities prior to approval of the decommissioning plan (e.g., decontamination, minor component disassembly, shipment and storage of spent fuel). Reasonable interpretation of the rules does not require expansion of 10 CFR 50.59 and/or activities permitted under a license. (Commenters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10)
"There could be insufficient financial resources remaining to decommission Nuclear Power Plants thus creating a potential burden on the state and, serious impairment of radioactive material licensee's ability to complete decommissioning. Most existing decommissioning -
' certifications and funding plans' are generally acknowledged by the NRC to already be severely UNDERFUNDED. This rule would exacerbate that situation." (Commenter 13)
Response: The NRC believes these commenters are confusing NRC approval of early. withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds with NRC approval of the early decommissioning activities themselves. In a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated January 14, 1993, the Commission stated, 64
l l
l l
"Notwithstanding the Commission's statements in footnote 3 of CLI-90-08 l 1
and the Statements of Consideration for the decommissioning rules at 53 l Federal Register 24025-26, licensees should be allowed to undertake any decommissioning activity (as the term " decommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2) that does not -- (a) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (b) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (c) l cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (d) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license (e.g.., OL, P0L, OL with confirmatory shutdown order etc.) or 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to the existing license."
l If decommissioning activities meet this criterion, the Commission ,
I indicated that the staff could permit licensees to use their decommissioning funds. The Commission subsequently directed the staff to develop criteria for the use of funds, as opposed to decommissioning activities, and further asked thestafftopublishtheresultingpolicystatementintheFederalReedster.
l l
Admittedly, commenters may be confused by the inclusion of criterion 4 in the draft policy statement, which repeated Commission guidance on allowable decommissioning activities from the January 14, 1993, SRM quoted above.
However, this criterion was not meant to provide guidance on decommissioning I
l trust fund withdrawals per se, but rather to reiterate established policy on the allowable decommissioning activities for which such withdrawals may be made. The NRC believes that the commenters' objections are more appropriately directed to the NRC policy of allowing certain decommissioning activities rather than to the use of trust funds once these activities have been approved.
65
1.
The NRC disagrees with Commenter 13's assertions. Although many site-specific decommissioning estimates by power reactor licensees may exceed the NRC generic formula amounts derived from 10 CFR 50.75(c), there is little
! indication that licensees are " severely underfunding" decommissioning if only the radiological costs of decommissioning are included. The NRC excludes from its definition of decommissioning the costs of interim spent fuel storage, l demolition of nonradiological structures, and restoration of the plant site to
" green field" condition. Most licensees include these and other nonradiological costs in their estimates of decommissioning. When such costs are excluded, the differences between NRC formula amounts and licensee site-specific estimates are not great.
In many cases, permitting a licensee to perform certain decommissioning activities and to withdraw funds for those activities before the NRC approves its decommissioning plan will allow the licensee to reduce its overall decommissioning costs, for example, by taking advantage of lower low-level radioactive waste disposal costs. This will benefit the licensee and its ratepayers without adversely affecting public health and safety. )
Comment 3: The NRC should develop a similar policy for operating plants and should allow licensees to withdraw decommissioning trust funds to dispose of structures and equipment no longer being used for operating plants.
(Commenters 7, 8 (by reference), and 14)
Footnote 2 of the policy statement should be revised to clarify that the policy statement does not apply "to licensee withdrawals from decommissioning funds for operating plants" rather than stating that the policy statement does not apply. "to licensees with operating nuclear reactors." (Commenter 11) 66
Response: The NRC is currently evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of a similar NRC policy on early decommissioning trust fund withdrawals for nuclear power plants that continue to operate. When and if developed, this policy will be published for public comment.
Footnote 2 will be revised to eliminate the error found by Commenter 11.
Comment 4: The policy statement may become obsolete if the NRC adopts a new definition of decommissioning as proposed on February 2, 1994 (59 FR 4868).
This definition states, " Decommissioning means to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits se of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license, or (2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license." To avoid obsolescence of the policy statement as a result of changes in the definition of decommissioning, the commenters recommend replacing all references to release of the site for unrestricted use with " decommissioning of the site consistent with the definition in 10 CFR Part 50.2." (Commenters 7, 8 (by reference), and 11)
Response: The NRC agrees with this recommendation and will change the policy statement accordingly.
Comment 5: Two commenter disagree with a statement in the draft policy statement, "If a licensee of a permanently shut down facility spends decommissioning trust funds on legitimate decommissioning activities, the timing of these expenditures, either before or after NRC approves a licensee's decommissioning plan, should not adversely affect public health and safety, 67
i' l
provided adequate funds are maintained to restore the facility to a safe storage configuration in case decommissioning activities are interrupted l
unexpectedly." (Commenter 7's emphasis) The commenters state that maintaining a viable SAFSTOR option beyond plan approval should not be required for cases where another option has been approved by NRC. (Commenters 7 and 8)
The draft policy statement misuses the term, "SAFSTOR," to.mean maintenance of a site in a safe storage condition prior to receipt of Decommissioning Plan approval and commencement of decommissioning rather than a specific decommissioning alternative defined in NRC regulations.
i (Commenters 11 and 14)
Response: Commenter 7 has misinterpreted the intent of this statement.
First, this part of the policy statement was drafted to make the point that any expenditures for decommissioning activities normally viewed as necessary would not be detrimental to public health and safety, notwithstanding the timing of these expenditures, unless they were large enough to prevent the licensee from returning its facility to a safe storage configuration if the decommissioning process were to go awry. Because even immediate dismantlement is a process that will likely take 5 to 7 years or more, the licensee should always have adequate funds to stop the decommissioning process and return the facility to a safe storage mode if something goes wrong. This is not the same as requiring a licensee to switch from DECON (immediate dismantlement) to SAFSTOR af ter the NRC has approved the licensee's decommissioning plan. Thus, i
t 68
the policy statement does not appear to warrant change as a result of this comment.
The policy statement will correct any references to SAFSTOR when it means to address the general ability of a licensee to return its reactor to safe f storage while awaiting further decommissioning.
l l Comment 6: Criterion 4 is redundant of the other criteria. (Commenters 7 and l
8). At a minimum, the statement should indicate that items (c) and (d) of criterion 4 do not require NRC approval before a licensee undertakes the proposed activities. (Commenter 8) Redundancies can be eliminated by factoring the first three criteria into criterion 4. However, issuance of the l 1
policy statement based on criterion 4 (or the other criteria) is premature in that the NRC is currently considering more definitive guidance on acceptable pre-plan-approval decommissioning activities. (Commenter 11)
Response: The NRC agrees that some confusion may have arisen by including criterion 4 in the policy statement. (See response to issue 2 abo've.) The NRC included this criterion to provide guidance on the allowed decommissioning activities as opposed to the use of decommissioning trust funds for those activities. Criterion 4 is a quote from Commission guidance in the SRM of l
January 14, 1993, and, to some degree, overlaps the other criteria of the policy statement. The NRC will thus remove Criterion 4 as a seperate criterion and, instead, include it as background and perspective in the policy statement.
Although the decommissioning activities included under criterion 4 may change as a result of evolving Commission policy, this policy statement i
69 l
concerning withdrawals for such activities may be of benefit to licensees sooner rather than later. (Most comments from utility licensees essentially j agreed with the thrust of the policy statement.) As indicated above, if the policy statement is structured to eliminate allowable act:vities as a I criterion for withdrawals from trust funds (i.e., criterion 4) and instead 1
incorporates allowable pre-plan-approval activities by reference, the commenter's concerns should be resolved.
Comment 7: The " ancillary issue" in the draft policy statement should be expanded to include a number of expenses that are paid out of decommissioning trusts by operating plants well in advance of licensee preparation and i
submission of the decommissioning plan. These expenses include, but are not I
limited to, trust fees, investment manager fees, income taxes, and periodic
]
l site-specific studies. (Commenters 7, 8 (by reference), 11, and 14)
The policy statement should be revised to state specifically that if a licensee determines that it meets the criteria for de minimis withdrawals, it need not request permission from the NRC to use these funds. (Commenter 8) 4
- " ...The section dealing with 'de minimis' withdrawals for developing the I decommissioning plan also seems to be outside the original intent for use of these funds. These withdrawals may seem to be a minor portion of funds allocated for decommissioning, but it starts a process that would allow utilities to tap these funds, if they can fit activities into the j
definition of decommissioning or simply request to use these funds for other purposes... 0ther uses are unacceptable, even if they are subject to prior regulator approval." (Commenter 13) 70
.. -.- - _ - _ _ . . =_-_ - -_ - _ -_-- .. - .
Response: The intent of the ancillary issue was to allow de minimis withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds of up to $5 million for decommissioning-related administrative and other expenses without prior NRC consent notwithstanding the operating status of the plant. The policy statement will be clarified to indicate that de minimis withdrawals may be made by licensees of operating as well as permanently shut down plants and that permission from the NRC to use these funds in de miriimis amounts is unnecessary as long as the amount and purpose of the withdrawal is documer,ted.
With respect to Commenter 13's concerns, the NRC has specified a maximum :
limit for de minimis withdrawals. If a licensee were to exceed this limit or use funds for non-decommissioning purposes, it would be subject to NRC enforcement action.
Comment 8:
...The NRC has neither articulated the reasons why this detailed level of oversight [ discussed in the policy , l l
statement] is needed, nor has the NRC provided specific examples of potential waste and misuse of funds that would warrant their proposed oversight.... Absent an appropriate justification for the implementation :
of this policy statement, . .. this policy statement represents regulation without benefit (and that NRC concerns expressed in the policy statement) are not tangible for decommissioning." Thus, the policy statement should not be issued. (Commenter 9)
Also, "the draft policy statement provides no basis for the NRC's conclusion that prior NRC review of pre-plan-approval decommissioning fund expenditures should be required." The draft policy statement may satisfy the 71
. _. __ ___ _ . _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . = . _
Commission's directive to the staff to develop a policy without including an j
approval mechanism. (Commenter 11) l The draft policy statement is not clear as to the purpose of the NRC review of decommissioning expenditures before decommissioning plan approval.
The only reason for the review, given in the statement of policy, is to ensure the health and safety of the general public. There are other regulatory l
mechanisms for evaluating the activity for which the funds are withdrawn without reviewing the actual withdrawal from the fund. The expenditure of )
decommissioning trust funds for legitimate decommissioning activities is an i economic and not a safety concern. (Commenter 14)
Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. Although the NRC did not include specific examples of waste and misuse of funds in the policy statement, as with any industrial process, costly mistakes can conceivably occur in decommissioning. Also, the NRC disagrees that the policy statement represents regulation without benefit. The NRC has specifically promulgated decommissioning requirements in 10 CFR 50.82, which include licensee submission of a decommissioning plan for NRC approval. Specific requirements for assuring the availability of funds for decommissioning according to this l
plan are provided in 10 CFR 50.75. Although NRC regulations do not require explicit NRC approval of trust fund withdrawals, the intent of the regulations is to require licensees to mainta'in the entire amount of funds needed for decommissioning in a specified assurance mechanism before the NRC approves a licensee's decommissioning plan, notwithstanding any activities a licensee chooses to undertake before such approval. Thus, the NRC believes that the :
l
' policy statement actually provides relief from the full decommissioning 72 l
.. _ . .. .. - --. = - - - - . _ - . _- . _ .
1 funding requirements of I i 50.75 and 50.82, and, therefore, decreases rather than increases regulation, l As stated above, the decommissioning plan is closely tied to a licensee's provision of assurance to fund the decommissioning plan adequately. Without l any NRC review of expenditures in advance of an approved decommissioning plan, the decommissioning plan could become a shell and thus defeat the purpose of l
NRC decommissioning regulations. Consequently, the NRC believes that a review mechanism is necessary to ensure tne integrity of the decommissioning process. l 1
Similarly, because of the safety implications of inadequate decommissioning funds, the NRC believes it has responsibility for reviewing withdrawals, notwithstanding the reviews that rate regulators may perform.
Comment 9: Trust fund withdrawals should also be permitted for early decommissioning-related activities that, although not themselves directly reducing radioactivity at the site, will significantly facilitate such activities when they subsequently occur. (Commenters 11 and 12)
Response: The NRC agrees that trust fund withdrawals for activities that will facilitate future decommissioning at shut down units should be allowed and will modify the policy statement accordingly.
Comment 10: The NRC should clarify footnote 2 to indicate that it applies to I licensees of multi-unit sites. "So long as usage of trust withdrawals is identifiable with the shut down reactor and does not diminish decontamination l
funding subsequently available for reactors which are continuing to operate, there is no reason why multi-reactor licensees should be treated differently i
73
than single-reactor licensees for purposes of this policy statement." i (Commenter 12)
Response: The NRC agrees with this statement and will clarify the policy statement accordingly.
Comment 11: "If the NRC believes that NRC review and approval of pre-plan-approval decommissioning expenditures is necessary, it should act through rulemaking rather than policy.... Since prior NRC review of decommissioning fund withdrawals is not currently required, if the NRC wishes to impose such a requirement, it should initiate rulemaking to revise its decommissioning ,
regulations accordingly." (Commenter 11) i Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. As described in the response to Comment 8, the NRC believes that the policy statement affords licensees the ability to make pre-plan-approval withdrawals that are arguably precluded by .
current NRC regulations and policies. As such, this policy statement represents regulatory relief. To implement this policy by rulemaking would delay this relief or would require the NRC to issue case-by-case exemptions until final rulemaking has been completed. The Commission specifically chose to issue a policy statement to clarify the applicability of its regulations without either burdening licensees unnecessarily or compromising the protection of public health and safety. However, because current NRC regulations are ambiguous, the NRC will consider clarifying its general policies on decommissioning trust fund withdrawals as part of the future broad decommissioning rulemaking that it is considering undertaking.
74
4 Comment 12: "The ' tacit consent' approach for reviewing licensee expenditure I plans is inappropriate" and unsupported by the reasons the NRC stated for its l l
policy. By expressly preserving the possibility that it would take action to l prevent a fund withdrawal, the NRC blurs its asserted distinction between review and approval. Also, it is not clear that " tacit consent" and l i " approval" are legally distinguisnable for purposes of determining whether the NRC is engaged in a " licensing action" that could involve public participation i l
and environmental review. (Commenter 11) i Response: The NRC believes that the tacit consent approach used in the policy statement is analogous to reviews of licensee actions taken pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 that have been performed effectively for several years and is thus distinguishable from a more formal approval procedure. Although the NRC believes it should remain cognizant of licensee withdrawals from trust funcs in advance of decommissioning plan approval, and should have sufficient information to take action when egregious waste occurs, it does not believe that these withdrawals would normally warrant formal approval. The NRC tried to strike a balance between appropriate actions adequate to protect public health and safety but not overly burdensome to licensees. The NRC continues l to believe that the tacit consent approach best strikes this balance.
a Comment 13: " Criterion 1 .... should be revised to eliminate the provision 4 that withdrawals must be for activities 'that would necessarily occur under most reasonable decommissioning scenarios.'" This phrase adds nothing to the i
preceding provision that the withdrawal must be for " legitimate 4 decommissioning activities." Because licensees may face decommissioning 75
- . . _. -. .. . __ . . -- - __ - - . - =. . _ = . .
7 l
l l
l I
i expenditures for activities that are within the NRC's definition of )
i decommissioning but nonetheless unique to their plant (s), the proposed provision is inappropriately restrictive. (Commenter 11)
" Criterion 1 is overly restrictive and burdensome.... If the NRC wants to l
prevent activities that preclude release of the site for [un] restricted use or are not in support of decommissioning efforts it should require review of the activity itself through any of the other available mechanisms such as 10 CFR 50.59 or special rulemaking.... The basic premise is that in the event that there are circumstances or conditions 4 i
which delay or preclude proceeding with the decommissioning effort there l will be funds available to place the plant in a storage condition until the event or circumstance is resolved. Thus, as long as the value of the fund does not fall below the regulatory required amount in effect at the 1
time of the request the withdrawal should be allowed. Thus, the only requirement should be that the utility document that [the] activity was a legitimate decommissioning activity and the expenditure was reasonable."
(Commenter 14)
Responsel The NRC did not mean to imply that decommissioning activities unique to )ne site would not be eligible for pre-plan-approval trust fund withdrawals. However, because we agree that the phrase, " legitimate l decommissioning activities," is sufficient, we will adopt this comment and 1
eliminate the offending phrase. We believe that, as revised, criterion 1 would require the licensee to demonstrate only that the activity was a l
legitimate decommissioning activity and that the expenditure was reasonable.
j i
76 l
H l
1 Comment 14:
...The explicit characterization as a decommissioning
' contingency' of the funding 'necessary to maintain the status quo' could be construed inappropriately to require that licensees include funding for i
that purpose in their decommissioning funds.... If this criterion is retained, the language regarding provisions for this contingency should be deleted from the policy statement." (Commenter 11)
Response: Having sufficient funds to return a facility to the status quo after unexpected events is important to protecting public health and safety while the licensee develops revised decommissioning plans and, possibly, plans to obtain additional decommissioning funds to cope with the unforeseen events.
If expenditures to maintain the status quo are necessary, the existing contingency inherent in NRC and licensee site-specific costs estimates should be more than adequate to cover such costs. If these costs cause the overall decommissioning cost estimate to increase beyond that available or projected I
to be available in a licensee's decommissioning fund in excess of the contingency, a licensee would have to secure supplementary funding from its ratepayers or stockholders. Since a licensee would have to obtain supplemental funding regardless of the cause of a decommissioning cost overrun, it is not clear why the commenter is objecting to this particular contingency. We do not believe that a licensee would be forced to address this scenario in its decommissioning plans to any greater degree than any other contingent scenario.
Comment 15: "It does not seem necessary that NRC approve requests for the withdrawal of decommissioning funds for early equipment removal, prior to 77
- - . . - - - . -- -_~ - . - _ _ - - - . . . . .. .-
1:
approval of the utilities ['] decommissioning plans. This does not seem in concert with the intent of the sample statement under Background '.... the ,
fund trustee should only release funds upon certification that decommissioning is proceeding pursuant to an NRC-approved plan.'" (Commenter 13)
Response: As indicated in the policy statement discussion, trust agreements do not necessarily contain the referenced language. To afford licensees the ability to make withdrawals for decommissioning expenses when beneficial to do so, while at the same time ensuring that decommissioning funding assurance is not compromised, the NRC continues to believe that the procedures as discussed in the amended policy statement are appropriate.
Comment 16:
" ...This ruling may be judged as an item of Compatibility (for Agreement States). Since Maryland regulations, policies, etc. are expected to closely follow federal rules and procedures, we would be forced to adopt and allow our licensees to use the same principle."
(Commenter 13) l Response: The NRC does not believe that this is an issue of State 1 compatibility because the policy statement only applies to power reactor l l
licensees, which are exclusively NRC licensees, and because the policy statement is not a rule.
78
Summary of Changes in the Final Rule Based on the response to comments, a few changes were made in the final rule. Otherwise, the final rule provisions are the same as those presented in the " background" section under the section titled Proposed amendments.
Specific changes made to the proposed rule in the final rule are summarized as follows.
(1) Section 50.36a(1) - The amendment has been changed to explicitly include temporary or permanent systems, since temporary systems may be used during decommissioning.
(2) Section 50.59 - Proposed 5 50.59(e) was eliminated. However, three of the proposed rule requirements contained in 5 50.59(e) were moved to i 50.82(a)(5) and (6). The fourth requirement that the terms of the existing license not be violated was eliminated. Also, the requirement to consider .
environmental impact in the PSDAR, 550.82(a)(4), was modified to explicitly require the reasons for concluding that any environmental impacts will be bounded by existing analysis.
I (3) Section 50.82(a)(4)(i) and (6) - The licensee is required to send a copy of the PSDAR and written notification of departure from the PSDAR, or an i updated PSDAR submittal, to the NRC and affected State (s).
(4) Section 50.82(a)(7)(ii) - The phrase "being permitted to use" was removed from this section to avoid any incorrect interpretation that the NRC 79 m..
i must explicitly approve decommissioning funding expenditures.
(5)
Section 50.82 - Specifies that once the rule is effective, all licensees must comply with it. Licensees that possess an approved plan as well as I licensees that applied for plan approval before the rule took effect would have the plan considered a PSDAR submittal, and licensees would be permitted to perform decommissioning activities in accordance with 50.82.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact Availability ,
i The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly ]
affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required. The final rule would clarify current decommissioning requirements for nuclear power reactors in 10 CFR Part 50, and set forth a more efficient, uniform, and understandable process. The Commission already analyzed the major environmental impacts associated with has decommissioning in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Gels), NUREG-0586, August 1988, published in conjunction with the Commission's final decommissioning rule (53 FR 24018, June 27,1988). In response to the comments, it was concluded that only some minor changes to the draft environmental assessment were TL necessary, corresponding to some minor procedural changes in the final rule.
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection and photocopying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
l 80
Single copies of the environmental .nssessment and the finding of no significant impact are available from Carl Feldman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, (301) 415-6194.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject 3501 et seq.). These to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0011. Because the rule will relax existing information collection requirements, the public burden for this collection of information is expected to be reduced by 12,202 hours0.00234 days <br />0.0561 hours <br />3.339947e-4 weeks <br />7.6861e-5 months <br /> per licensee. This reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for further reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33),
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-10202, (3150-0011),
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Regulatory Analysis The The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis of this final regulation.
analysis qualitatively examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives l 81 l.. .
considered by the NRC. In the response to comments, it was concluded that only some minor changes to the draft regulatory analysis were necessary, corresponding to some minor procedural changes in the final rule. The regulatory analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.
(Lowerlevel), Washington,DC 20555-0001. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Dr. Carl Feldman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6194.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),
the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule would impose requirements for timely decommissioning of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities as given in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards promulgated in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration (13 U.S.C. Part 121).
82
Backfit Analysis The Commission has determined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to these final amendments, and therefore, a backfit analysis has not been prepared for this rule. The scope of the backfit provision in 10 CFR 50.109 is limited to construction and operation of reactors. These final amendments would i l
only apply to reactors that have permanently ceased operations and, as such, would not constitute backfits under 10 CFR 50.109.
1 List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal-10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 51 Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
83
For reasons set out in the preamble and under the autt.ority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the foll 31ng amendments to 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, and 51.
PART 2 - RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUANCE OF ORDERS
- 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.
Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. L.97-425 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 U S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134,2135,2233,2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs.
161b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 84
2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 and Table 1A of Appendix C also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Section 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.
2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L.91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also issued under Sec.10, Pub. L. 99 - 240, 99 Stat.1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021b et. seq.).
- 2. In 5 2.1201, paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as follows:
1 2.1201 Scope of subpart.
t (a)
(3) The amendment of a Part 50 license following permanent removal of fuel from the site to an authorized facility for licensees that have previously made declarations related to permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor in accordance with 5 50.82(a)(1).
Subpart L hearings for the 1..ense temination plan amendment, if conducted, must be completed prior to license termination.
85
. . . . _ - _ . - .= __--.- --.._..-_- -- __ . - . - . - . _ - . . .
- 3. In i 2.1203, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:
i 2.1203 Docket: filina: servic).
l * *
(e) A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be served in accordance with 5 2.712 and i 2.1205(f), (k). All other documents issued by the presiding officer or the Commission or offered for filing are served in accordance with 6 2.712.
- 4. In i 2.1205, paragraphs (d) through (n) are redesignated as paragraphs (e) through (o), a new paragraph (c) is added, and paragraphs (d),
(e)(2), (e)(4), (h), (i), (j), (k), (k)(3), (1)(1), (1)(2) are revised to read as follows:
1 2.1205 Reauest for a hearina: petition for leave to intervene.
(c)
For amendments of Part 50 '.icenses under i 2.1201(a)(3), a notice of receipt of the application, with reference to the opportunity for a hearing 4
86 l
i I
4 4
under the procedures set forth in this subpart, must be published in the l j i 4 !
Federal Register at least 30 days prior to issuance of the requested amendment 4
l by the Commission.
(d) A person, other than an applicant, shall file a request for a hearing within-- i (1) Thirty days of the agency's publication in the Federal Register of a l
notice, which must include a reference to the opportunity for a hearing under 1
the procedures set forth in this mabpart, referring to either the receipt of an application, or the granting o. an application, in whole or in part, requesting a licensing action. With respect to an amendment described in i 2.1201(a)(3), the Commission, prior to issuance of the requested amendment, I will follow the procedures in 5 50.91 and i 50.92(c) to the extent necessary i
to make a determination on whether the amendment involves a significant j
! hazards consideration. If the Commission finds there are significant hazards considerations involved in the requested amendment, the amendment will not be issued until any hearings under this subsection are completed.
' (2) If a Federal Register notice is not published in accordance with paragraph (d)(1), the earliest of -
a a j l
I * *
(e)
(2) How the interests may be affected by the results of the proceeding, )
including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing, with ,
1 particular reference to the factors set out in paragraph (h) of this section; 87
(4) The circumstances establishing the request for a hearing is timely in ,
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section. l l
(h) In ruling on a request for a hearing filed under paragraph (d) of this section, the presiding officer shall determine that the specified areas l of concern are germane to the subject matter of the proceeding and that the petition is timely. The presiding officer also shall determine that the requestor meets the judicial standards for standing and shall consider, among other factors -
l *
- l L i I
(i) If a hearing request filed under paragraph (c) of this section is granted, the applicant and the NRC staff shall be parties to the proceeding.
If a hearing request filed under paragraph (d) of this section is granted, the requestor shall be a party to the proceeding along with the applicant and the NRC staff, if the staff chooses or is orderec to participate as a party in accordance with 5 2.1213.
(j) If a request for hearing is granted and a notice of the kind described in paragraph (d)(1) previously has not been published in the Federal 88 l
n j
Register, a notice of hearing must be published in the Federal Register stating -
(k) Any petition for leave to intervene must be filed within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of hearing. The petition must set forth the information required under paragraph (e) of this section.
(3) Thereafter, the petition for leave to intervene must be ruled upon by the presiding officer, taking into account the matters set forth in paragraph (h) of this section.
i l
(1)(1) A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene found by the presiding officer to be untimely under paragraph (d) or (k) will be entertained only upon determination by the Commission or the presiding officer that the requestor or petitioner has established that -
l L
(2) If the request for a hearing on the petition for leave to intervene l is found to be untimely and the requestor or petitioner fails to establish that it otherwise should be entertained on the paragraph (1)(1) of this section, the request or petition will be treated as a petition under i 2.206 and referred for appropriate disposition.
89 1
I 1
l l
- 5. In i 2.1211, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
l 2.1211 Participation by a person not a party.
1 l
1 (b) Within 30 days of an order granting a request for a hearing made under 5 2.1205(c)-(d) or, in instances when it is published, within 30 days of notice of hearing issued under i 2.1205(j), the representative of the interested State, county, municipality, or an agency thereof, may request an opportunity to participate in a proceeding under this subpart. The request 4 for an opportunity to participate must state with reasonable specificity the requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject matter of the proceeding. Upon receipt of a request that is filed in accordance with these time limits and that specifies the requestor's areas of concern, the presiding officer shall afford the representative a reasonable opportunity to make written and oral presentations in accordance with il 2.1233 and 2.1235, without requiring the representative to take a position with respect to the issues. Participants under this subsection may notice an appeal of an initial decision in accordance with 6 2.1253 with respect to any issue on which they participate.
l
- i l
2 90
1 i
i
- 6. Section 2.1213, is revised to read as follows:
i I i 2.1213 Role of the NRC staff.
i If a hearing request is filed under i 2.1205(c), the NRC staff shall be a party to the proceeding. If a hearing request is filed under i 2.1205(d).
} within ten (10) days of the designation of a presiding officer pursuant to i 2.1207 the NRC staff shall notify the presiding officer whether or not the
' In addition, staff desires to participate as a party to the adjudication.
upon a determination by the presiding officer that the resolution of any isrue in the proceeding would be aided materially by the staff's participation in J
- the proceeding as a party, the presiding officer may order or permit the hRC
- staff to participate as a party with respect to that particular issue.
l i
i i
l 7. In i 2.1233, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
1 i 2.1233 Written presentations; written auestions.
(c) In a hearing initiated under i 2.1205(d), the initial written presentation of a party that requested a hearing or petitioned for leave to intervene must describe in detail any deficiency or omission in the license application, with references to any particular section or portion of the 91
M application considered deficient, give a detailed statement of reasons why any particular sections or portion is deficient or why an omission is material, and describe in detail what relief is sought with respect to each deficiency or omission.
l
- *
- l
- 8. Section 2.1263, is revised to read as follows:
i I 2.1263 Stays of NRC staff licensina actions or of decisions of a presidina officer or the Commission pendina hearina or review.
d Applications for a stay of any decision or action of the Commission, a 4
presiding officer, or any action by the NRC staff in issuing a license in accordance with 5 2.1205(m) are governed by 5 2.788, except that any request i for a stay of staff licensing action pending completion of an adjudication under this subpart must be filed 4 6 the time a request for a hearing or petition to intervene is filed or within 10 days of the staff's action, whichever is later. A request for a stay of a staff licensing action must be 4
filed with the adjudicatory decisionmaker before which the licensing proceeding is pending.
l 92
- __ ._ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ ~ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FA
- 9. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, f
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, c133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123, (42 U.S.C. 5851).
I Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102 Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C.
50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 4332). Sections Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35. 50.55, and Sections 50.56 also issued under sec.185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).
50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Appendix F also issued under sec.187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
- 10. In 5 50.2, the terms " Certified fuel handler," " Major decommissioning activity," " Major radioactive components," " Permanent 93
__ _ _ __ - ._ ._ -_. _ . . _ . _ . . . . _ _ __.. ~ .__ _
I 1
l cessation of operations," and " Permanent fuel removal," are added to read as !
l follows:
l l 5 50.2 Definitions. f Certified fuel handler means, for a nuclear power reactor, a non-licensed operator who has qualified in accordance with a fuel handler training program approved by the Commission.
Major decommissioning activity means, for a nuclear power reactor, any activity that results in permanent removal of major radioactive components,
~
permanently modifies the structure of the containment, or results in dismantling components for shipment containing greater than class'C waste in accordance with 5 61.55 of this chapter.
Major radioactive components means, for a nuclear power reactor, the reactor vessel and internals, steam generators, pressurizers, large bore l
l reactor coolant system piping, and other large components that are radioactive.
94
Permanent cessation of operation (s) means, for a nuclear power reactor, a l
certification by a licensee to the NRC that it has permanently ceased or will permanently cease reactor operation (s), or a final legally effective order to permanently cease operation (s) has come into effect.
I Permanent fuel removal means, for a nuclear power reactor, a certification by the licensee to the NRC that it has permanently removed all I
fuel assemblies from the reactor vessel.
- 11. In 5 50.4, paragraphs (b)(8) and (b)(9) are added to read as follows:
5 50.4 Written communications.
(b)
(8) Certification of Permanent Cessation of Operations. The licensee's certification of permanent cessation of operations, pursuant to i 50.82(a)(1),
95
l must state the date on which operations have ceased or will cease, and the signed and notarized original must be submitted to: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
(9) Certification of Permanent Fuel Removal. The licensee'r certification of permanent fuel removal, pursuant to i 50.82(a)(1), must state l the date on which the fuel was removed from the reactor vessel and the l disposition of the fuel, and the signed and notarized original must be submitted to: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
l
- 12. In 5 50.36, paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) are redesignated as (c)(7) and (c)(8) and new paragraphs (c)(6) and (e) are added to read as follows:
5 50.36 Technica' 30ecifications.
(c)
(6) Decommissioning. This paragraph applies only to nuclear power reactors that have submitted the certifications required by 5 50.82(a)(1) and to non-power reactors which are not authorized to operate. Technical specifications involving safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control system settings; limiting conditions for operation; surveillance requirements; design features; and administrative controls will f
be developed on a case-by-case basis.
l l
96
. - -. _ . .- .. - . - _ - - . _ ~ - - - . . - . -- .--.
4 (e) The provisions of this section apply to each nuclear reactor licensee whose authority to operate the reactor has been removed by license amendment, order, or regulation.
- 13. Section 50.36a is revised to read as follows:
5 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors.
(a) In order to keep releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal conditions, including expected occurrences, as low as reasonably achievable, each licensee of a nuclear power reactor will include technical specifications that, in addition to requiring compliance with applicabi.- provisions of 5 20.1301 of this chapter, require that:
(1) Operating procedures developed pursuant to 5 50.34a(c) for the control of effluents be established and followed and that equipment installed, either permanently or temporarily, in the radioactive waste system, pursuant to i 50.34(a), ; sintained and used. The licensee shall retain the operating procedures in effect as a record until the Commission terminutes the license and shall retain each superseded revision of the procedures for 3 years from the date it was superseded.
(2) Each licensee shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 97
l months, including any other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. The report must be submitted as specified in 5 50.4, and the time between submission of the reports must be no longer than 12 months. If quantities of radioactive materials released during the reporting i
l l
period are significantly above design objectives, the report must cover this
(
specifically. On the basis of these reports and any additional information l
the Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may require the licensee to take action as the Commission deems appropriate.
(b) In establishing and implementing the operating procedures described in paragraph (a) of this section, the licensee shall be guided by the following considerations: Experience with the design, construction, and i operation of nuclear power reactors indicates that compliance with the l
technical specifications described in this section will keep average annual releases of radioactive material in effluents and their resultant committed l effective dose equivalents at small percentages of the dose limits specified l At the same time, the licensee is permitted in 5 20.1301 and in the license.
the flexibility of operation, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to assure that the public is provided a dependable source of power l,
even under unusual conditions which may temporarily result in releases higher than s,sch small percentages, but still within the limits specified in 5 20.1301 of this chapter and in the license, it is expected that in using this flexibility under unusual conditions, the licensee will exert its best efforts to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents as low as is i reasonably achievable. The guides set out in Appendix 1 provide numerical guidance on limiting conditions for operation for light-water cooled nuclear 98
power reactors to meet the requirement that radioactive materials in effluents released to unrestricted areas be kept as low as is reasonably achievable.
- 14. Section 50.36b is revised to read as follows:
5 50.36b Environmental conditions.
Each license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility, and each license for a reactor facility for which the certification of permanent cessation of operations required under i 50.82(a)(1) has been submitted, which is of a type described in 5 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or i 50.22 or is a testing facility may include conditions to protect the environment to be set out in an attachment to the license which is incorporated in and made a part of the license. These conditions will be derived from information contained in the environmental report and the supplement to the environmental report submitted pursuant to il 51.50 and 51.53 of this chapter as analyzed and evaluated in the NRC record of decision, and will identify the-obligations of the licensee in the environmental area, including, as appropriate, 1
requirements for reporting and keeping records of environmental data, and any conditions and monitoring requirement for the protection of the nonaquatic environment.
- 15. In 5 50.44, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
99
j i 50.44 Standards for combustible gas control system in light-water-cooled
- power reactors.
i (a) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled witt, oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZlRLO cladding, other than a reactor facility for which the certifications required under 150.82(a)(1) l i,
have been submitted, must, as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, include means for control of hydrogen gas that may be generated, following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) by---
- 16. In 5 50.46, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised to read as follows:
l 5 50.46 Acceptance criteria for emergency core coolina systems for light i
- water nuclear power reactors.
1 (a)(1)(i) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZlRLO j
- cladding, other than a reactor facility for which the certifications required
- under i 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted, must be provided with an emergency core cooling system (ECCS) that must be designed so that its calculated cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. ECCS cooling performance must be calculated in accordance with an acceptable evaluation model and must be calculated for a number of postulated loss-of-coolant 100
I i
I accidents of different sizes, locations, and other properties sufficient to provide assurance that the most severe postulated loss-of-coolant accidents are calculated. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the evaluation model must include sufficient supporting justification to show ,
l that the analytical technique realistically describes the behavior of the l reactor system during a loss-of-coolant accident. Comparisons to applicable
)
experimental data must be made and uncertainties in the analysis method and j inputs must be identified and assessed so that the uncertainty in the calculated results can be estimated. This uncertairty must be accounted for, so that, when the calculated ECCS cooling performance is compared to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, there is a high level of probability that the criteria would not be exceeded. Appendix K, Part II Required Documentation, sets forth the documentation requirements for each evaluation model.
- 17. In 5 50.48, paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:
5 50.48 Fire protection.
(f) Licensees that have submitted the certifications required under 5 50.82(a)(1) shall maintain a fire protection program to address the 101
potential for fires which could cause the release or spread of radioactive materials (i.e., which could result in a radiological hazard).
(1) The objectives of the fire protection program are to:
(i) Reasonably prevent such fires from occurring; (ii) Rapidly detect, control, and extinguish those fires which do occur and which could result in a radiological hazard; and (iii) Ensure that the risk of fire-induced radiological hazards to the public, environment and plant personnel is minimized.
(2) The fire protection program must be assessed by the licensee on a i
regular basis and revised as appropriate throughout the various stages of facility decommissioning.
(3) The licensee may make changes to the fire protection program without NRC approval if these changes do not reduce the effectiveness of fire l protection for facilities, systems and equipment which could result in a radiological hazard, taking into account the decommissioning plant conditions l
l and activities.
l I 18. In 5 50.49, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
1 i
550.49 Environmental aualification of electric eauipment important to safety 1
for nuclear power plants.
i l
(a) Each holder of or an applicant for a license for a nuclear power plant, other than a reactor facility for which the certifications required under 6 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted, shall establish a program for qualifying the electric equipment defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
i 102
- * * *
- l
- 19. In 5 50.51, the Section heading is changed, the existing paragraph is designated paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:
l 5 50.51 Continuation of license.
1 (b) Each license will continue in effect beyond the expiration date, if necessary, with respect to possession of the production or utilization facility, until the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated. During any period of continued effectiveness of a l 1
license beyond the license's stated expiration date, except for a license which is in timely renewal status under 5 2.109 of this chapter, the licensee is prohibited from operating the production or utilization facility and shall-(1) Take actions necessary to decommission and decontaminate the facility and continue to maintain the facility, including the storage, control and maintenance of the spent fuel, in a safe condition, and (2) Conduct activities in accordance with all other restrictions applicable to the facility in accordance with the NRC regulations and the provisions of the specific 10 CFR Part 50 license for the facility.
103
.. -. ._ . .. - .. . _. .- . _ - = - _ - - . - . - - . . - - - - . . _ .
- 20. In 5 50.54, paragraphs (o) and (y) are revised to read as follows:
l I
i50.54 Conditions of licenses.
1
)
I (o)
Primary reactor containments for water cooled power reactors, other than reactor facilities for which the certifications required under i 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted, shall be subject to the requirements set l
forth in Appendix J to this part.
I
- l l , ,
1 l
4 l
(y) Licensee action permitted by paragraph (x) of this section shall be l
approved, as a minimum, by a licensed senior operator, or, at a nuclear power l l l l
l reactor for which the certifications required under i 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted, by either a licensed senior operator or a certified fusi handler, prior to taking the action.
l In i 50.59, paragraphs (d)v-fety and (fe) are added to read as 21.
follows:
6 50.59 Changes, tests and experiments.
104
1 i
I (d) All the provisions of this section shall apply to each nuclear power i
reactor licensee that has submitted the certification of permanent cessation of operations required under 5 50.82(a)(1).
a e...,,.+.-e. , 4 , .n ..n..e,. _ _ +u...,+. u..,,., e.. . . u._. 4. +.. .+. . A + u. .m.
2 a.m.,.,...,e. n_
Tw \, 7 . m.. . e.
- n n. f.
nn
. n. n. . .e e.n. n,n. 4. e. . n A.u. n. A. n. e.
I
' e. n. .e.+ 4. f. 4. r. .s. .. I.. n. n.a f. a, .n e. - s .n...a n. t. r. a. r. .e .% +. . n. n. 7 . e..%+.
4r +n
- r. .a .n. A .n i r + .s r.
+
- 4. o. 4. +. (. .m .e - e. +. k. e .m n, .s e. A.
m +. n. +. .6. . m f. .o r. 4 1 4. +. ,u , c.. o A. ar. +. ..
I. E . n. . O .S , / .s i/1\
,r., m.s
~ ,o . ..
4n ,....
m r +. i. n n. . , n r e..m m.. 4. . .A m. A +4e
+w-14 4.+..,g4nn.e .. . . .A n. ,. r e.4. x.n. A. n
, ., e. .s n, e..nw_I.,\
,. , , m. f. +w4.e.
.e .k. .% .n. ,n. .n o.ne . t l. A-..n.n+....
. . a e. 4. +. m.(n .. e. n n. ..e c. 4. kl. .a u.. n. e. n. c. +..... e.4. .. r +n.n eAn ,
/1. E.. n. c.a r. l. a. c. a.+..L. r. r .n l. .a .s .e. m . n f. + . L. y s ,\ .
/9% e. n e + r. ,
C. 4 n, n. . e f i. r. .s n. . +.1. i n.,oc. e. n. .s e. .n A n. o. n. . . . 4. c e. i. .n
. . n.
, . i n. .. n s.,
- e. a s.s i..-..
no^A, e i. n, n.; f i. r ..s n. . t. .n a t.s i e.n . n. . . . n. n. . +. .s 1 -i m n, .s e. +.
- n. n. +.nc e.n. i.s i. n. i.n
. e l. ,i ,
IS, s.\ f.' .s ...
.sen --,u sn i
! w e,
_, i t. e. m
. n. . , m m. . . m.- 4.,+.a.n.n, 1 4. e. m. m. . e. n. .
. +.L...m + m e. . . .a. f. +. k. . m.
I A.
1 , \ u. i. n. i. .s..+ ..
r n k.n. e.
4.
+. L. 4. e. nr .s e..s n e..a C
. .n e. e. b. . .w n. . n, n.a.e. . n .+ ._ n .n + 4. n, n, .s n.,o a. f. +
.. , . L. . a .r e 4 + n. #.4. .s
.s e. . .% n, f. a. r. .
1 4. r. a. n. . e. n. a. e. k. . .s i. l c. a.i k. m.4. +. r n l. i. e. ..s + 4. n n. .
- t. k. 4..e. e. n r. +. i. n. n. . , +. L.a.
r .s e..s n, e..% e, b.r/ .s n i, a. f.
,_ n . . e.e...,n.+. +n e. e. n. . o. n. .
....-n..A._..mn..+.
- r. . . . . ..
(fe) The provisions of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section apply 1
to each non-power reactor licensee whose license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor.
I l
- 22. In 5 50.60, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
5 50.60 Acceptance criteria for fracture prevention measures for light-water t
' nuclear power reactors for normal operation.
105
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all light water nuclear power reactors, other than reactor facilities for which the certifications required under 5 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted. must meet the fracture toughness and material surveillance program requirements for the reactor coolant pressure boundary set forth in Appendices G and H to this part.
- I
- 23. In 5 50.61, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
5 50.61 Fracture toughness reauirements for protection against pressurized thermal shock events.
l
- *
- 1
- * {
(b) Requirements.
(1) For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor for which an operating license has been issued, other than a reactor facility for which the certifications required under 5 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted, the licensee shall have projected values of RT,n, accepted by the NRC, for each reactor vessel beltline material for the EOL fluence of the material. The assessment of RTn, must use the calculation procedures given in paragraph c(1) of this section, except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section.
The assessment must specify the bases for the projected value of RTn, for each vessel beltline material, including the assumptions regarding core loading 106
patterns, and must specify the copper and nickel contents and the fluence i
value used in the calculation for each beltline material. This assessment ,
l must be updated whenever there is a significant' change in projected values
- of RT,rs, or upon request for a change in the expiration date for operation of the facility.
- 24. In 5 50.62, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: l I
l 5 50.62 Reauirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients without scram (ATWS) events for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
(a) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to all commercial light-water-cooled nuclear power plants, other than reactor facilities for which the certifications required under i 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted.
l
\
- 17. In 5 50.65, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
5 50.65 Reouirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants.
' Changes to RT,,, values are considered significant if either the previous value or the current value, or both values, exceed the screening criterion prior if to the expiration of the operating license, including any renewed term, applicable for the plant.
107
(a)(1) Each holder of a license to operate a nuclear power plant under f dition of structures, il 50.21(b) or 50.22 shall monitor the per ormance or con systems, or components, against licensee-established goals, in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that such structures, systems, and l
f components, as defined in paragraph (b), are capable of fulfilling their
! intended functions. Such goals shall be established commensurate with safety and, where practical, take into account industry-wide operating experience.
l When the performance or condition of a structure, system, or component does l
For l
l not meet established goals, appropriate corrective action shall be taken.
a nuclear power plant for which the licenses has submitted the certifications specified in i 50.82(a)(1), this section shall apply to the extent that the licensee shall monitor the performance or condition of all structures, systems, or components associated with the storage, control, and maintenance of spent fuel in a safe condition, in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that such structures, systems, and components are capable j
l of fulfilling their intended functions.
l l
1
- 25. In 5 50.71, paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:
l
! l 50.71 Maintenance of records. making of reports.
8 108
(f) The provisions of this section shall apply to nuclear power reactor licensees that have submitted the certification of permanent cessation of operations required under 5 50.82(a)(1). The applicable provisions of this section shall also apply to non-power reactor licensees that are no longer authorized to operate.
26, In 5 50.75, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
1 50.75 Reportina and recordkeeping for decommissionina planning.
(f)(1) Each power reactor licensee shall at or about 5 years prior to the projected end of operations submit a preliminary decommissioning cost estimate which includes an up-to-date assessment of the major factors that could af fect the cost to decommission.
(2) Each non-power reactor licensee shall at or about 2 years prior to the projected end of operations submit a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up-to-date assessment of Factors to the major factors that could affect planning for decommissioning.
be considered in submitting this information include--
The (i) The decommissioning alternative anticipated to be used.
requirements of 5 50.82(b)(4)(i) must be considered at this time; (ii)
Major technical actions necessary to carry out decommissioning safely; 109
(iii) The current situation with regard to disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive waste; (iv) Residual radioactivity criteria; (v) Other site specific factors which could affect decommissioning l
l planning and cost.
l (3) If necessary, the cost estimate shall, for power and non-power reactors, also include plans for adjusting levels of funds assured for l
I decommissioning to demonstrate that a reasonable level of assurance will be ;
provided that funds will be available when needed to cover the cost of decommissioning.
l 1
- 27. In Section 50.82, the section heading is changed and the entire section is revised to read as follows: l l
5 50.82 Termination of license.
The fe'lcwing prevision: 2pply-tc 'icensec: who de not 5:ve :n "RC approved dccc=i icn ng plan er the effective date of this rule and my be i
used, :t the 'icen::c's Optien, by 'icensect 'Sc possess :n "9C approved deceri::icn ng pl:n er the effective d:tc cf this rule.-
i The following provisions apply to all licensees. For power reactor licensees who, prior to the effective date of this rule, either submitted a decomissioning plan for approval or possess an approved decomissioning plan, the plan shall be considered as the PSDAR submittal required under paragraph 110
i 4
4 (a)(5) of this section, and the licensee shall be permitted to perform f
decommissioning activities in accordance with the provisions of this section. l l
(a) For power reactor licensees--
(1)(i) When a licensee has determined to permanently cease operations l
the licensee shall, within 30 days, submit a written certification to the NRC, r
consistent with the requirements of 5 50.4(b)(8) and; Once fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel, (ii) submit a written certification to the NRC, consistent with the requirements of j l50.4(b)(9).
(2) Upon docketing of the certifications for permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel, or when a final legally effective order to permanently cease operations has come into effect, the 10 CFR Part 50 license no longer authorizes operation of the 1
reactor or emplacement of fuel into the reactor vessel.
- (3)
Decommissioning will be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations. Completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years will j
be approved by the Commission only when necessary te protect public health and safety. Factors that will be considered in evaluating an alternative which i
provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site-specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning, including presence of other nuclear facilities at the site.
permanent cessation of (4)(i) Prior to or within 2 years followit operations, the licensee shall submit a post-snut6csn decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) to the NRC, and a copy to the affected State (s),
which shall include a description of the planned decommissioning activities 111
- - --- . . _ = _ _ _ _ . . - -- -.. - - -
)
i along with a schedule for their accomplishment, an estimate of expected costs.
and a discussion c te ehetScrthat provides the reasons for concluding that the environmental impacts associated with site-specific decommissioning activities will be bounded by appropriate previously issued environmental impact statements.
)
~
available for public comment. The NRC shall also schedule a public meeting in The NRC the vicinity of the licensee's facility upon receipt of the PSDAR.
shall publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such as local newspapers, which is readily accessible to individuals in the vicinity of the site, announcing the date, time and location of the meeting, along with a brief description of the purpose of the meeting.
(5) Licensees may not perform any major decommissioning activities, as defined in i 50.2 that:
(i) Foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use; (ii) Result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed; and (iii) Until 90 days after the NRC has received the licensee's PSDAR submittal and until certifications of permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessei, as required under i 50.82(a)(1), have been submitted.
(6) In taking actions permitted under i 50.59 following submittal of the PSOAR, the licensee shall notify the NRC, in writing or in an updated PSDAR submittal, and send a copy to the affected State (s), before performing any decommissioning activity inconsistent with, or making any significant schedule 112
change from, those actions and schedules described in the PSDAR, including significant changes in decommissioning costs.
(7)(i) Decommissioning trust funds may be used by licensees provided:
(A) The withdrawals are for expenses for legitimate decommissioning activities consistent with the definition of decommissioning in 5 50.2; (B) The expenditure would not reduce the value of the decommissioning trust below an amount necessary to place and maintain the reactor in a safe storage condition if unforeseen conditions or expenses arise and; (C) The withdrawals would not inhibit the ability of the licensee to complete funding of any shortfalls in the decommissioning trust needed to ensure the availability of funds to ultimately release the site and terminate the license.
(ii)
Initially, 3 percent of the generic amount specified in 5 50.75 may be used for decommissioning planning. For licensees that have submitted the certifications required under 6 50.82(a)(1) and commencing 90 days after the NRC has received the PSDAR, an additional 20 percent may be used. A site-specific decommissioning cost estimate must be submitted to the NRC prior to the licensee being per-itted to useusing any funding in excess of these amounts.
I (iii) Within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations, if not already submitted, the licensee shall submit a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate.
(iv) For decommissioning activities that delay completion of decommissioning by including a period of storage or surveillance, the licensee shall provide a means of adjusting cost estimates and associated funding leve's over the storage or surveillance period.
113 1
(8) For licensees that have submitted a certification in accordance with 6 50.82(a)(1), the application for termination of license must be accompanied or preceded by a license termination plan to be submitted for NRC approval.
l (i) The license termination plan must be a supplement to the FSAR or equivalent and must be submitted at least two years prior to the termination of license date.
(ii) The license termination plan must include--
(A) A site characterization; (B) A description of remaining dismantlement activities; (C) Plans for site remediation; (D) Detailed plans for the final radiation survey; (E) A description of the end use of the site, if restricted; (F) An updated site-specific analysis of remaining decommissioning costs; and (G) A supplement to the environmental report, pursuant to 5 51.53, describing any new information or significant environmental change associated -
with the licensee's proposed termination activities.
(iii) The NRC shall notice receipt of the license termination plan and make the license termination plan available for public comment. The NRC shall also schedule a public meeting in the vicinity of the licensee's facility upon receipt of the license termination plan. The NRC shall publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such as local newspapers, which is readily accessible to individuals in the vicinity of the site, announcing the date, time and location of the meeting, along with a brief description of the i
purpose of the meeting.
114 r
(9) If the license termination plan demonstrates that the remainder of decommissioning activities will be performed in accordance with the regulations in this chapter and will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, and after notice to interested persons, the Commission will approve the plan, by amendment, subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate and necessary and authorize implementation of the license termination plan.
(10) The Commission will terminate the license if it determines that-(i) The remaining dismantlement has been performed in accordance with the approved license termination plan, and (ii) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation l
demonstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release.
(b) For non-power reactor licensees--
(1) A licensee that permanently ceases operations must make application for license termination within two years following permanent cessation of operations, and in no case later than 1 year prior to expiration of the operating license. Each application for termination of a license must be accompanied or preceded by a proposed decommissioning plan. The contents of the decommissioning plan are specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(2) For decommissioning plans in which the major dismantlement activities are delayed by first placing the facility in storage, planning for these delayed activities may be less detailed. Updated detailed plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of these activities.
(3) For decommissioning plans that delay completion of decommissioning by including a period of storage or surveillance, the licensee shall provide that---
115
1 1
+
\
l l
l (i) Funds needed to complete decommissioning be placed into an account segregated from the licensee's assets and outside the licensee's administrative control during the storage or surveillance period, or a surety method or fund statement of intent be maintained in accordance with the criteria of 5 50.75(e), and (ii) Means be included for adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels over the storage or surveillance period.
(4) The proposed decommissioning plan must include --
(i) The choice of the alternative for decommissioning with a description of activities involved. An alternative is acceptable if it provides for l completion of decommissioning without significant delay. Consideration will be given to an alternative which provides for delayed completion of decommissioning only when necessary to protect the public health and safety.
Factors to be considered in evaluating an alternative which provides for delayed completion of decommissioning include unavailability of waste disposal
' capacity and other site-specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning, including the presence of other nuclear facilities at the site.
(ii) A description of the controls and limits on procedures and l
equipment to protect occupational and public health and safety; l (iii) A description of the planned final radiation survey; f (iv) An updated cost estimate for the chosen alternative for decommissioning, comparison of that estimate with present funds set aside for decommissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds for completion of decommissioning; and 116
l
! l 1
l i i (v) A description of technical specifications, quality assurance provisions and physical security plan provisions in place during ]
f decommissioning.
1 (5) If the decommissioning plan demonstrates that the decommissioning will be performed in accordance with the regulations in this chapter and will
) not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety l of the public, and after notice to interested persons, the Cxstissir , will e 4
approve, by amendment, the plan subject to such conditions and itmications as it deems appropriate and necessary. The approved decommissioning plan will be a supplement to the Safety Analysis report or equivalent.
i (6) The Commission will terminate the license if it determines that--
(i) The decommissioning has been performed in accordance with the V
approved decommissioning plan, and (ii) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release.
1 (c) For a facility that has permanently ceased operation before the j
expiration of its license, the collection period for any shortfall of funds j will be determined, upon application by the licensee, on a case-by-case basis !
1 taking into account the specific financial situation of each licensee.
- 29. In 5 50.91, the introductory text is revised to read as follows
I 1
5 50.91 Notice for public comment: State consultation.
l The Commission will use the following procedures for an application 4
requesting an amendment to an operating license for a facility licensed under
't i 117
i 50.21(b) or 5 50.22 or for a testing facility, except for amendments subject to hearings governed by 55 2.1201-2.1263 of this chapter. For amendments
( subject to il 2.1201-2.1263 of this chapter, the following procedures will apply only to the extent specifically referenced in i 2.1205(c) and (d) of this chapter:
- 30. In 5 50.111, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
6 50.111 Criminal penalties.
(b) The regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 that are not issued under il 161b, 161i. or 1610 for the purposes of 5 223 are as follows: il 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.8, 50.11, 50.12, 50.13, 50.20, 50.21, 50.22, 50.23, 50.30, 50.31, 50 32, 50.33, 50.34a, 50.35, 50.36b, 50.37, 50.38, 50.39, 50.40, 50.41, 50.42, 50.43, 50.45, 50.50, 50.51, 50.52, 50.53, 50.56, 50.57, 50.58, 50.81, 50.90, 50.91, 50.92, 50.100, 50.101, 50.102, 50.103, 50.109, 50.110, 50.111.
- 31. Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50 is amended by revising Sectio:s (1),
the introductory text of Section (IV), and Section (IV)(C) to read as follows:
f 118
1
]
J Appendix I - Numerical Guides for Desian Objectives and Limitino Conditions of Operation to Meet the Criterion "As low As is Reasonably Achievable" for Radioactive Material in light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents.
SECTION 1. Introduction. Section 50.34a provides that an application
)
- for a permit to construct a nuclear power reactor shall include a description i of the preliminary design of equipment to be installed to maintain control over radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents produced during normal conditions, including expected occurrences. In the case of an application filed on or after January 2, 1971, the application must also l
identify the design objectives, and the means to be employed, for keeping levels of radioactive material in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as practicable.
Section 50.36a contains provisions designed to assure that releases of radioactive material from nuclear power reactors to unrestricted areas during i
! normal conditions, including expected occurrences, are kept as low as
(
practicable.
SEC. IV. Guides on technical specifications for limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 50. The guides on limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors set forth below may be used by an applicant for a license to operate a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor or a licensee who has submitted a certification of permanent cessation of operations under i 50.82(a)(1) as guidance in developing technical specifications under 119
O I
l 6 50.36a(a) to keep levels of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable.
Section 50.36a(b) provides that licensees shall be guided by certain considerations in establishing and implementing operating procedures specified I
in technical specifications that take into account the need for operating flexibility and at the same time assure that the licensee will exert his best effort to keep levels of radioactive material M "luents as low as is reasonably achievable. The guidance set forth below provides additional and more specific guidance to licensees in this respect.
Through the use of the guides set forth in this Section it is expected that the annual release of radioactive material in effluents from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors can generally be maintained within the levels set forth as numerical guides for design objectives in Section II.
At the same time, the licensee is permitted the flexibility of operations, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to assure that the public is provided a dependable source cf power even under unusual !
i conditions which may temporarily result in releases higher than numerical guides for design objectives but still within levels that assure that the average population exposure is equivalent to small fractions of doses from natural background radiation. It is expected that in using this operational flexibility under unusual conditions, the licensee will exert his best efforts to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents within the numerical guides for design objectives.
120
C. If the data developed in the surveillance and monitoring program l described in paragraph B of Section III or from other monitoring programs show that the relationship between the quantities of radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the dose to individuals in unrestricted areas is significantly different from that assumed in the calculations used to determine design objectives pursuant to Sections II and III, the Commission may modify the quantities in the technical specifications defining the limiting conditions in a license to operate a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor or a license whose holder has submitted a certification of permanent cessation of operations under 5 50.82(a)(1).
l 121
l l
PART 51 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
- 32. The authority sectio,1 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953, (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat.
1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).
Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335); and Pub. L.95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041; and sec. 193, Pub. L.
101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80.
and 51.97 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42. U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec 114(f), 96 Stat.
2216, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)).
- 33. In 5 51.53, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
5 51.53 Supplement to environmental report.
122
. . - - - _. =_- -- - - - - _ _ - - . -. ..- .. .- . . = . .
(b) Post Operating License Stage. Each applicant for a license amendment authorizing decommissioning activities for a production or l
utilization facility either for unrestricted use or based on continuing use !
restrictions applicable to the site; and each applicant for a license amendment approving a license termination plan or decommissioning plan under 5 50.82 of this chapter either for unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to the site; and each applicant for a license or license amendment to store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the operating license for the nuclear power shall submit with its application the number of copies, as specified in 5 51.55, of a separate document, entitled " Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report--Post Operating License Stage," which will update " Applicant's Environmental R
-Operating License Stage," as appropriate, to reflect any new information or significant environmental change associated with the applicant's proposedl l
decommissioning activities or with the applicant's proposed activities with Unless otherwise required by respect to the planned storage of spent fuel.
the Commission, in accordance with the generic determination in 5 51.23(a) and the provisions in 5 51.23(b), the applicant shall only address the environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the term of the license appl for. The " Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Repcrt--Post Operating License Stage" may incorporate by reference any information contained in
" Applicant's Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage," " Supp Applicant's Environmental Report--Operating License Stage," final environmental impact statement, supplement to final environmental stat 123
i 1
records of decision previously prepared in connection with the construction permit of the operating license.
l l
l 34. In 5 51.95, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
l l
5 51.95 Supplement to final environmental impact statement.
l i
(b) Post Operating License Stage. In connection with the amendment of an operating license authorizing decommissioning activities at a production or utilization facility covered by 5 51.20, either for unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to the site, or with the issuance, amendment or renewal of a license to store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the operating license for the nuclear power reactor, the NRC staff will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for the post operating license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, which will update the prior environmental review. The supplement or assessment may incorporate by reference any information contained in the final environmental impact statement, the supplement to the final environmental impact statement--operating license stage, or in the records of decision prepared in connection with the construction permit or the operating license for that facility. The s',pplement will include a request for comments as provided in 5 51.73. Unless otherwise required by the 124
Commission, in accordance with the generic determination in 5 51.23(a) and the provisions of i 51.23(b), a supplemental environmental impact statement for the post operating license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, will address the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage only for the term of the license, license amendment or license renewal applied for.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission.
125
I l
l March 26,1996 Presentation to:
l
! US NRC Joint ACRS/ACNW Subcommittee -
i 1
l Low Level Radiation Health Effects:
- Data, Science, and Opportunities 1
) to Save Massive Public Expenditures,
] & Nuclear Science & Technology Contributions to Human Welfare 4
Jim Muckerheide j ' Mass. State Nuclear Engineer
~
Radiatian, Science, and Health, Inc.
4
l 4 l
i
/ '
1 1 i J. MuCuaRHEIDE Mass. EAAERGENCY MANAGEAAENT AosNCY.
Mass. STATE NUCLEAR ENGINEER Mass. gov. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION i
REPORT AND PRESENTATION TO MASSI.CHUSETTS' l i GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION l
i 1 JAMES MUCKERHEIDE, MASS. STATE NUCLEAR ENGINEER
) Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency
! Governor's Advisory Council on Radiation Protection i
l, December 9,1994 l i March 10,1996 -
L -
l 1
LOW LEVEL RADIATIO N HEALTH EFFECTS:
A COMPILATION OF DATA AND PROGRAMS ,
I i .
3
r
( ,
J. MUCKERHEIDE MASS. EERGNY Mmer AGENCY MASS. STATE NUCLEAR ENGINEER MASS. Gov. AovaSORY COUNCIL ON RAosATION PROTECTION SOURCES OF Low LEVEL RADIATION EXPOSURE DATA Human Populations Exposed to Low Level Radiation Radiobiology Research Data Non-human Biological Populations Cellular, Molecular Biology and Genetics Research
l J. MUCKERHEIDE Mass. STATE NUCLEAR ENGINEER Mass. EMERGENCY h0EMENT hY Mass. gov. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON RAD 4ATION PROTECTION HUMAN POPULATIONS EXPOSED To Low LEVEL RADIATION Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors Occupationally Exposed (Radiologists, Military, & Industry) s Medically Exposed (l' ', X-rays, etc.)
Radium ingestion (Dial Painte.rs, Medical, Nostrums) l Weapons / Facilities Releases Natural Background Radiation Sources 4
.. .. . .. .n .a . . .a. . ,; ;-
- .,.h;a.
ps" ngg30a@M;w gaygs.
- .:. +.e. de.vtikebM.W-E=Zh i -
NL/ES@26 w i;,? qy n
,s.+ ,. :,m..ai: . rie}=MFC es33Mys$
J z w ^ he;tp.>el.
gj<g = w y.y, % p 3- ,,,,,, s2fgANEL/,ES (M,tp.
~a.g.
I i ,
ll l
- 1
- i
! G NNE R
._l ..
i r no en __ a 'p, 1
w eve ,
we r i
i ow ra e Ra Ion -
1 x.@. ..
..w; t s ' -
~
-: ps 7:-
- .h..yh,i 5 .
. eO.T.
$,b??' %.. r. .-
.e.m 5v NormanfA.%Frigerlo;n .
erman i i
^
anSlRalph S Stowe%$f9*'^yREiMhW%Mdd3,3Kei 'r ,
4 fj'$lfjGi.~
- g.;'f f#
- t. ,,
- i" g y.
q "
J ,.y 21
- Q~hTc d. ' As '
7seg igg -
g g- -. tglys I
=
)
k e
"* 7 .g
- ._ = l h,,
,w ; . S .y,:n. . .. .. . ;.
.._..u.;. ..
- gg-- -'
l 'dy{c'ifg JM { .
yy.:. .n.; !:g' y .
. ;. ., lz.as ne
~id15EfAV53TilM7759FERAM- *W i li NNE ATg ' d
~
[.
are o ICjENER M1 -
_r C. on rac- .Nh,5,NE.D., 9 web ~ -
g*
' g. .c
.. mI.hh N-h. b# M<e. sym.rm M <t'.4 U
.[N< ,;3EdnANE[
- = e m . x:.~- s .. MNEdh5
-= =. ~ n ~.esE, e,.A $$$h!b);d?.3'K$il? N .yyb 4
a=.w = =
' ;~ .
~
". ~
'q.,
,c .:.2 . d2
. i : < ; U d, .
t' " " [ .# . [' h'. - '
5{i?A.,N L1,E SRh.,2,6 H.
. . . g': y: 7s. ..m. ,yu;. ::... t. .e,;..
-* ~
. . ~ .tn;y;h. . - L. ,N - L2.E.. .S',2.5 W
,.t Ra:.w{lb r "pj n
. jj@g. P5Ft W
~.g ,,1.
" " }g&p. ..$p .5.. , .
jg[ht;in(gii@Jh~j'g#
' ~
q h<' 3 . , . .. - - m- -
F il .E1 $N, .Id ,y@Mr [' '
h 4T,HErARGONNE,R ADIOLOGIC~d
- i M R %tMt%AiML
^
1 i CT3PROGR AM :%ispg i " ' AL>
2
' ARI) .:=v yfM "QMf"
,i a rt fl.$.Ca L v rcin og e nic b [J .
owalev,i$$EW?'SdW+?Haiardefrom :
M# el " Low-rate Radiat@ ion % 9 y.:;Y y/ 0 1
.4)\
9 -
a CM <
- @f s,c 7.? m%.g::On.,qqxkp>;.&F;/.tinpe?.T
- .n .m z .? .
y.
v p y? 1 .
e, -..,..
,,.,t'1 %.. s . '.? ,' ' ;' "" .z ,:. . 7'.A%.. p c%:m%.,.p.;;,
34y;y &. y9
, ;. m'
' ' .,, .e. ;ty W4 l}.b V) m J t.
- c'. & ,*:,z 5; ,% f.M y {' f s W 'k R
~
- L
- i; .'.';'. :~
Q . 6M M, ;i; Lf:'. <v ^: c_ . 5;t ,- ' Ch, h lM wi.cSWy.,. R
.b ':N rm a n:
. r w , .
. d'i";
7Q.v...,o 7:,,,-
n xy . u v .. v . . , . . : A; Fr. ig erio,'. .K e it h ; F. ;E6 mk.p
.e r.g,a n, . y" .. f hWMT:W,p
. ~
- ^g;.. .g..ng
. - g, ;,M.,. i.m.- ,.: . e.23.y g' ;
m;;,;%'M 3;a nd Ralp h 'S.i.- S t o w e. ;
1
% ..g , cP. ..4.a +f g.w'. m:.m WM5W- ?s Tww- e w.~
9;
- ge5.n ..
4f f/; u.
J'. ..~; c? <
-; .. . . ;ig.g'.Np@ . W* % i=hjp40.5/ y 73ygMQ 9 39
- El G
?$.w
.: a
.D -
ng ~:;
JW ; r.
yM,; g dj n m,e.
g Y u. M. w
~.w y. ..i v:k.
T N 1.dd,,.u.cs.
d$N y h4 fy *M 5
. A My,. .$, ,'
k
. -. . . .A. . . .w .%
g .
,p.g. h%:.M&W M.'9..w;;U: h.D.4.Mn. ,9% "
,.n, .g;we. ..,f
> .u< . . . ::.,u...
. . n..
w l n. c q:p
. . x.
. 7,%. ;~.,: ::. av; %.:
-,. : ,w .; p .-q.y,, .. . ,iy,st.- ~.
y9 q y,
.. !:.yi.~ , .y .
g.. .,
a .y. 1 e . .,
"" 1 ,,.
, 4u hMh. .-..:. ' f YO >
. ..x.3.u:.n f
. .g,y :::,.n:..;.gQ%.M, 9 '
tg[' - p.
yM@DAqh, e.I
,,ffE m e -
- z. m 4
%q $ p. 6 4 Q ^ $.;e. h.c.pt, 4. ;d; [ [j';f%'J,, w @gA I#iti,1W.y p,. M
"_ tA.dum: .y 3;tl4 3 -::f.%W g/gMM, +(g.~..m)Myh :
-l big "~ " :
g i ?.hMGg55ND:A'Y %.gf ~'. lNF
~ 'Qt #
1
).&K,pthiEg$hh^^ bad au.4 3:
.fl & w . .
f' .
s'/ -
't r '
- d. q. nt ,
.E g
. - ; .)<
- 6 ~7 e o*cr t.
a g,
y qb.,e_.,,c-a p&,y n - -
- ~ p
~g .
- Vi .,b,' @h 5h.. f i,r4, s v.-; 're p +u.. %- r
-.p,y,e.3
- q g.. a c.
i m ;.
m ;2 p
. w .;o.. mQ.
q; n -
7 m.o r.. <p,o . . .
c A;t. itM6;.1 WWE'r &,' . M ti;
.Y$kk $${sh. h h ^'hs E RGON N EiN ATION ALLL A BOE ATORY %AR GON "
Prep e SMM 7d 3., ' gnw@ar,$@difor .mne.p m tv-,u.m m w w the @'U.S;'ATOMICiENERGYdW88'EG OMMISSION A a v e .u w ,.,m
, E s,q mg,%:undeFCoiitractiW-31
.%gpinn;:2??
?,ri a,w-aa :x:n.,.pl6h s109-Erig-38h.y 3m 9Ev.J.qW"M%#'[5 ;Q
- ?
MJ: e.:e-9
. , . ';. ' . ~M
- MnweWewlp?% .
- t. ::c.m W f.
_ .:; &'t :_ - _ . ' ' .. ,: KI '.:6 .2l" JQI;';3,V QO.:i %'.-}
.f{i *'.; '.?:U.1c,j.gqw. _3.'(y '
..' . ,2; - / . . m .;- 5 3 ::: p t ;.
. . _ .,a :.::c ..
20
..~.
200 -
190 -
180 -
N 170 - '
4 160 -
I ot 150, , .t. 'I.' .
. .- e i i40 -
..eg'..'.
130" 120
- '.3, ,
110 -
10 0 i i e i i i i i e s e e e i 100 Il0 120 130140 150 160 170 180 190200 210 220230240 250 NATURAL BACKGR00iiC, mrem /yr Fig. 1.
Helignant Nortality Rates for the U. 8. White Population. 1950-1967, by state end Retural Background. The horisostal line and opes etrete indiente the rate and boekground for the W. S. es a whole. .
)
22
,,, Tabla 4. U. S. Low and High Background White Populations, 1950-1967 l l l No. Characteristic A B U. S.
C 1 Natural background, mres/yr 1
210 170 1 30 118 3 White population, thousands 5735 16,897 158,051 59,683 !
3 r, Mn 140-159 42.9 45.6 52.4 50.3 !
4 r, Mn 160-164 15. 8 i
16.9 22.3 23.4 j 5 r, Mn 170-181 I 36.8 38.2 41.5 40.1 1 6 r, Mn 190-205 30.8 31.5 33.3 33.0
^
7 r, All malignancies 126.3 132.2 149.5 146.8 8 Residence altitude, ft 4510 2650 900 730 i
l 9 Urbanization, % 63 57 69 74 10 Per capita personal income, $ 2021 1922 2215 2255 3dian family income, S 5600 5400 5660 5650 1 12 thysicians/1000 population 1.27 1.25 1.49 1. 4' 13 Hospita*. beds /1000 population 8.24 8.82 9.49 8. 7i 14 Median years of school completed 11.8 11.7 10.9 10.8 15 Poor diet households, %
16.5 21.2 19.1 19.1 16 Population'on Federal Food Assist, % 2.6 3.2 3.2 2.5'
,17 Unemployment, % 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.3 18 Accepted, Military Selective 65 63 56 53 Service -
L9 Life expectancy, male 67.7 67.7 67.6 67.5
?0 Life expectancy, female 74.5 74.7 74.2 74.3 l 11 Urban air, particulates, ugm/m3 129 119 115 116
- 2 Urban air, benzene soluble, pgm/m3 10.1 9.3 9.5 9.6 l an air, radioactivity, pC1/m3 8.5 7.7 6.8 6.3
\ -
4 Urban air, beta, pC1/m3 5.5 5.2 4.4 4.2 l
1 1
. 23 (5' Table 4. (Contd.)
No. Characteristic A B U. S. - C 25 r, Mn 140-205, age 0-3 8.11 8.31 8.54 8.31 -
26 r, Mn 140-205, age 10-19 6.80 6.61 6.82 6.72 27 r, Mn 140-205, age 20-29 10.46 10.73 11.09 11.19 28 r, Mn 140-205, age 30-39 27.61 28.39 31.45 32.27 29 Mortality rate, all causes 892.0 893.2 928.5 903.9 30 U. S.-group, all causes 36.5 35.2 -
24.6 31 U. S.-group, malignancy 23.2 17.3 -
2.7 32 r, Stomach,151 11.7 11.6 11.8 11.0 33 7 All G. I . , 150-159 40.7 43.0 49.0 46.7 34 r, Lung, 163-164 14.5 15 .5 20.4 21.5
, Breast, female, 170 21.5 22.6 25.3 24.4 36 r. Thyroid, 194 0.055 0.054 0.057 0.054 37 r, Bone, 196 0.92 1.03 1.12 1.07 38 r, Leukemia, 204 7.03 ,7.23 7.13 6.91 l
i
- iiN D t ::i 75li
'[-f *
.e ,; !
i f! ll-a -
'[; .4
. g. hs k = - '
t';[$j
i p..r ';;t h ', '
its
.t
'$y@! 4y J9
{- .
jp!p.7
~
1 @ii%
i' 4 .. ._
l 'g "E !! l~
1 h 'i
- 4 kg rfg=- ,i2 l 3
' i f {;';;,E p
B , l 'O f'p- #
.ki 5
4[
g 3' -: ;
J5!:dk.j,pp;$ r t Y
.g
~ *up ' -
- ' r .,j j , i
,d h:j -
hg- -' i Figurc 9. Aerial . adiometric map of rMassachusetts (afte D (eU). Pixels : haded at 0.5 ppm eU increments; darke r pixels have lower eU ovalues; .
white
. ppm equivalent ata. uraniumindicates n du e
- 6 6W m en.m =_ m.
)
(g y c.s O
y s . . . . ,, ,, , .
v . ...e f y N y
- n\ s y
},./smg,mgcem,<, ="b dj**
oong-anting s
\
Es11 n cou,uy
\
Tongyou region J J -
1 -
.J k..g;pregion o Co? ,
y .
J *
)
o s
o .
e o L %
7
. souui cliina sea 2,0km
- 9 .
o
_.____.-__..___________.__..__m__ _ . _________._--__.-________--.__.__m._ _ _ _ _ _ . - - ___s . -_2 m.. _ _ _ _ _
i
[
Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski (Nukleonika,1995*):
"Probably the best radioepidemiological study at low doses has been carried out in China. ..
"Should the Chinese Government follow the Soviet example and evacuate Yangjiang County? ..
"In an age group of 10-79 years the general (non-leukemia) cancer rnortality was 17% lower in the high background county than in low !
background ones. The leukemia mortality among men was 15% and among women 60% lovver in Yangjiang than in low background counties." i
- " Beneficial Radiation" 40, No.1, 3-12 i
3 ,
a t
f 32 3
T .. isi
> 7 "
o 4 216 /
O
{\ '
/ COUNTIES -
e l p 19 5 ' ,
s , l
, s e
]2 6 I
> I lis"[
g 19 2 ' '
l O f
.404 I i
1 s ;tY sa
/v 2. 7 <
r .
m / 1 01 1 t w '
yt-4g ,
is o5 -
e f o i
Z "
t 4
o e f ,,
. . .\ s 4 , 1,4, .-
7 s, s i,37
. i
\
e - \
z e \ :
3 /
- e, , ,
" < \ !
4' , -
0.5 1 2 5 PCi L-8 i
i t
i Data from Cohen plotted semi-log i I
i
Tabla 4.11A Standa-dited mortality ratios (SMR) for male inhabitants of Misasa radon spa area and a control area, 1952-88 l
[ Site of cancer Misasa Control an:a I
Observed Expected SMR Observed Expect < d SMR 1
All sites 53 98.48
\
Buccal mucosa 0.538" 228 268.23 0.850' i 0 2.83 0 Pharynx 10 7.64 1.309 l Larynx -
Stomach 16 40.01 Colon, rectum 0.400 " 86 108.38 0.794*
2 6.76 0.296 Liver 14 18.63 0.752 13 12.20 1.066 Pancreas 32 32.74 0.978 2 3.71 0.539 4 10.06 0.398 Peritoneum i 1.05 0.950 3 2.78 1.080 l Lung 6 12.64 0.475 33 35.65 0.926 Unknown 2 1.97 1.017 primary site 2 5.47 0.365 Ler1:cm!a 1 2.25 0.445 11 5.48 2.009*
Others 10 14.15 0.707 33 38.92 0.848 Table 4.11B Standardized mortality ratios (SMR) for female inhabitants of Misasa radon spa area and a control area, 1952-88 Site of cancer M!sasa Control area Observed Expected SMR Observed Expected SMR s
All sites 37 79.88 0.463" 156 202.64 0.770 "
Buccal mucosa 0 1.40 0.000 2 3.65 0.547 Pharynx Lannx Stomach 12 26.55 Colon, rectum 0.452" 58 68.58 0.846 1 7.07 0.142* 13 18.14 Liver 2 0.717 9.14 0.219' 19 23.67 Pancreas 2 0.803 3.08 0.649 7 7.77 Peritoneum 2 0.901 1.16 1.721 9 3.00 Lung 3.000**
1 5.34 0.187 5 13.57 Breast 0.369*
1 3.89 0.257 5 8.89 Uterus 4 0.563 8.97 0.446 12 22.45 Unknown 0 0.535*
2.16 0.000 2 -
5.51 primary site 0.363 leukemia 1 1.87 0.534 5 4.26 1.174 Others 11 9.24 1.190 19 23.18 0.820
l 9
\
100'
<y i %. - )
1 ys -
8
-j .,
- ~n, o t g,
\
\
1
'~~,
e \
w 3y
, o, 6
8 ' .,
o . N 6
Q.
2s.
~,
,' .9 ;s ' o
."...,, ~~ .
o, ...........
% . .. A i * ,
. O 1 i
2 3 4 5 TIME (YR)
- Figu
- 6 1.10.
Representative survivalship functions for ea: tern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) living under natural conditions in the wild. These curves characterize data for female animals of known birthdate at location site in Crawford County, Pennsylvania. Empiric polynomial functions were fitted to the three sets of population data: e = controls; 5 = animals receiving a i single dose of 200 R lonizing radiation; and o = animals receiving a single
! dose of 400 R. Time on the abscissa began at capture. Note the improved survival of irradi'.ted animals. Thompson et al.47 equated Roentgens with rads; however, a more appropriate conversion factoris 1 R is approximately 0.95 rad with respect to muscle tissue.91 l and Snyder.92 Reprinted from Thompson p. 276, et al.,g7The oriofinal data cam by permission Marcel Dekker, Inc.
l l
l l
4 I
i l .
I_
v ,
i i
a 130 -j l
- i 120 - .
t E
1 110 - !\ A \
} :p/ \ / N j l j N Lorenz.1950 I
,I N N
100
+-------------------------h------------------ -----
I Rate of wght. Gain \ ,
% of Control Group N ,
\
91 - Morris. et al.1963 N -
\
!! \ t
\
- (
'I N I i i i e i !
O l i 1 2 3 4 5 !
, 6 7, 8 l
- l .
R!d !
I 1
] FIGURE 2.
Increased growth rates in irradiated mice were compa-rable for experimentsin different laboratories.
[
Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation '
m
/
% of control 300 - R Seed Exposed
/\ Grain Yield _
j
/
- -M/g (Breslavets and Afanseva,1935) 200-f l Seed Exposed, f
f I Wheat Yield 180 - /
I ( Schulz,1971) .
/
I t l
/ \
160 - /
1
/
I
/ l
/ I 140 - j I f i I
/
I 120 - I
^l andets Exposed.
/
?> l Strawberry Yield,
' g
, ,,. 4 y / (Fendrik,1970
'/ 1~
100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T-----------
\
\
\
80 - \
\
\
k g_ -
40 -
20 n
~~ i i I 101 4 0 102 103 10 R X Ray Dose
Table 4 cu C U GAMMA RAY HORMESIS f,-- Organism Year Effect Investigator Ref.
Virus 1961 "Co rays increased transduction of a bacte.
. hielbourne Dept. Baet. 757 tiophaseinto Pseudomonas aeruginosa 1972 Low level radiation gave no change; 4-16 AnoLhin 1
. 34 L R injured potatoes and favored great ac.
cumulation of potaio X sirus ,
Dacieria 1964 Soil NO*, increased following exposure to Dowen and Cause 126 1-60 L R; with 5-20 L R yields of barley and letluce from treated soil were consist.
ently greater,117-20S%
1966 blill treated with 200 LR promotes the Dupuy 277 gros th of Lacrobacil'us factis 1967 Soil irradiation at 200 k R increased nitrifi. Cause 184 cation lenfold; short review h1 ore nitrate accumulated in soil following Cause and Craw ford 185 irradiation 1968 Spores of Bacillus cereus wcre activated 10 Gould and Ordal 405 germinate in direct proportion to the dose of radiation with 20,60,180,540, and 1000 R 1973 in E. califed amino seids with no glucose. Ehrenberg, Fedoresak 2S1 y radiation counteracts the suppression of and Naslund RN A synthesis by cysteine as indiented by "C uracilincorporation 1973 Vegetation of B. stearothermophilusspores LueLey et al. 696 (exposed to 10' R from '"Co) was twice that of control; larger doses decreased vegeta-tion Fungi 1964 Chronic irradiation of 60-230 R/ day made Drodo 146 Parmelia suleata grow faster than uner-posed thalli of the lichen; no damage was noted with exposures up to I kruday 1967 Parasitic fungi gave increased respiration Savulescu and Decer- 983, following i LR esposure escu 954 1968 Low doses gave no morphologic changes Ettakhova and Alar. 302 and increased survival twice that of control tens Beauvenia bassiana 1968 The dose-response curve with "Co had a Deering 242 shoulder at the low doses for the slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum:200 LR showed slight depression in growth 1970 Rate and % germination is increased by low- Hashimoto and Yana- 470 levelirradiation of D. discoldcum gisaeua 1973 Aflotoria-producing strains of Aspergillus Applegate and Chipley 36 Bavusproduce more D. aflotoxin w hen ex-posed to 150-300 kR y rays 1976 Large doses,200 k R, depressed growth and Adams et al- 7 putulin synthesis in Penicillium, while low doses,15 k R, increased patutin synthesis 125% in P. expansum Germination of A. nigerwas inercased by 10 Golubtsova et al. 395 LR exposure Chronic radiation of 1.6-4 R/hr increased Ruzin et al. 625 growth and organic acid production in A.
mger
- . - - .~ _-
l .
T; ble 4 (continued)
GAMMA RAY HORMESIS pqc)g' qO l
Org:nism Year Effect Investigator Ref.
l l
Several dif ferent exposures increased lon- van Berstel et al.
I 1179 gevity, fertility and hatchabilityin Habro- l bracon 1971 House cricles females, not males, showed Hunter and Krithayal. 501 1
l increased longevity when exposed to 0.5, I, icvn or 2 L R as young adults; 4 LR or more de-creased longevity Springtail adults exposed to 1.9 L R had de- Styron !!20 ercased fertility, but increased fecundity, 148% more eggs per adult per day Fruit flies showed slightly increased survival Cavalloro and Delrio 183 l following 10-20 L R; higher doses gave de- l ercased survival when compared to control; i
1000 insects per g. l 197* rd$n fly,2 days before adult enclosure, ex. Schroeder et al. 996 posure 1010 L R resulted in early mating:
mating began tric fourth day in exposed and the seventh day in control flies Chronic exposure of snails to 0.65 R/ day re. Coolev 208 l suited in few er egg capsules produced, but '
, each had more eggs per capsule
- rtebrates ;
1932 Fish respiration is increased by minute doses Stoklasa and Penkava l113 of radiation 1954 Mice appear o have longer survival when Lorenz et al. 678 exposed to 0.1 R/ day; mice and guinea pigs grow faster when exposed to I or 2 R/ day; rabbits may grow faster with 1.1 or less R/
day 1957 Rats lived longer,127% of control, and had Carlson et al. 179 higher respiration when exposed 10 0.1 R/
hr for S hr/ day chronic radiation; two tem-peratures used were 5 and 25'C 1957 Rats given ' ' R/ day had increased longev- Carlson et al. 179 ity,1 t6% or sontrol 1959 Mice RBC increase following 69 R/ day Hammond et al. 461 chronic radiation -
Mice exposed to 10 to 19 R/ day showed de- Noble S41 creased mortality rate 1960 Low doses of radiation to yeast and mice Maisin et al. 713 gave increased radiation resistance Rats exposed to 3 R/ day had increased life Carlson et al. 178 span, :28% of control Mice brains exposed to 5,10, or 25 R Livanov and Koadra- 666 l showed increased excitability to electricity leva l People exposed 10 0.08 R show fourfold Dobson and Ingram 257, more binucleated lymphocytes than control 515 Mother rats continuously exposed to as Maisin et al. 713 much as 10 mR/hr gave young that were '
fourfold more resistant than control to 500 R of X-rays 1961 Lowered sterility was found in d does ex. USAEC 1870 posed to 0.3 or 0.6 R/ week than in control; exposure of 3 R/ week made dogs sterile within 1 year
l l
Table 4 (continued)
GAMMA RAY HORMESIS
.Qay e g>
l Organism Year Effect Insestigator
, ." Ref.
Low doses of radiation.0.1 R/ day, to rat Semaginin 1014 cmbryos in the third period of desclopment resuhed in increased aren and thicker cere. )
bral cortex
~
Chicks grew faster than controls w hen the Shebaita 1021 eggs were given 640 R from "Co Note: Nonirradiated controls = 100 when comparisons are made on a percentage basis, that
"' may be of value. Examples include the increased yield of potato,'" '"2 co t to n ,'"-
and flax." Interestingly, the use of radiation to prolong flowering has not been explored seriously with garden flowers. Plants that could be used for mechanism stud-ies include duckweed, Acetabularia, and medicinal species.
Increased resistance of plants from irradiated seed to infection has been reported for several species. These include corn,'28 '" potato,"" grass,'*" and other plants.'"
Increased drought resistance has also been reported in irradiated peas."'
Some workers found radiostimulation was effective only with plants grown on defi-cient soils.2"-
i 2
"" However, Degner and Schacht " 'sund that plants from irradiated corn seed grc v faster in the best growing conditions. ;
The evidence that low-level y radiation stimulates animals is substantial for some sp--ies.
re There is little information about the extremes, protozoa and man. The few ef. about protozoa indicate tnis might be one of the best models to determine the sf many variables and bcr,in exploration on mechanisms. For example, the re-ports of increased reproduction ,hrough several generstions immediately suggests the !
presence of one or more chemical compounds that carry through several ce!! divisions. ;
Improved reproductive performance is a recurrent theme in reports from,y radiation studies with invertebrates Chronic y irradiation gave shortened generation times through several generations.'" Melville'" and Wakid et al."" found mare egg produc-tion in irradiated insects; Crenshaw"5 found irradiated males produced more progeny in a short time. And both Styron"" and Holtan'" reported increased reproductive capacity in exposed individuals as determined by total offspring in a given time. Sty-ron"" found the decreased fertility of springtail.; exposed to 1.9 kR was more than I l
- ompensated by the increased fecundity as determined by the number of eggs per adult per day. This concept was confirmed by Cooley " with snails. Irradiated flies were 2
found to mature and mate in about half the time of controls.'" Gerontologists"* have acknowledged the increased longevity of irradiated insects and mammals. As shown n Table 4, many laboratories have reported the average life span of a variety of insects xas increased by low-level y irradiation. The data of Cork"' are ". . . beyond any l sossible experimental error." Since this effect is found in both males and females, it s improbable that the whole effect is increased life span due to less expenditure of
- nergy and materials for reproductive structures. Adler' claims that disease resistance s ed by irradiation.
i R-4 from low-level y irradiation of vertebrates, mostly laboratory rodents, show hat most effects seen with lower forms are also found in some vertebrates. Increased espiration and growth are common findings with low doses. Low-level continuous y radiation,1.2 and 2.6 R/ day, wbre not harmful to mice into the tenth generation.'"
210 llormeds with lonizing Radiation i
12 50. Zakharov, V. M., Li,'ects of low dog of internal radiation on the conditioning refles in while rats,
- 1. High, Nerr. Act..Itr.) 11,122,1961.
(
1241. Zankov, Z., Gamma ray treatment of vine seeds. Gradinar. Lozar. Naula, 2, 77,1970; NSA 26:59030. ,
1242. Zankverich, E. K. and Brunst V., Effect of X rays on individual development of tobacco, poppy, flas and rhubarb, inst. Bot. A.N. U.S.S.R., 18,77,1937 1243 Zaurov, E. I., An experiment on the effect of X. rays on Indian hemp, Biol. Zh. 6,479,1937 1244. Zeimalov,1. I., Aliv. A, A., and Riza.Zade. R. R., influence of preplanting samma irradiation on the yield and phytophthotosis of potatoes, Radiobiology (Afoscow). 12,311,1972; NS A 27:2731.
1245. Zeller, H., Effect of drugs and radiation upon yeast.1. The basis of the Arndt Schulz law Biochem. .
Z.,171, 4 5.19 26.
- 1246. Z:ller H., Effect of drugs and radiation in > cast. Ill. Effect of X rays on yeast, Strahlentherapie, 23,336,1926. ,
1247, Zeller, H., Effect of sarious drugs and of radiation on yeast. II. Demonstrating the influence of X.
rays on substances using yeast, Biochem. Z.,172,105,1927.
1248. Zelles. L., The influence of antibiotics on the UV stimulation of Pinus sitrestris pollen tubes, Bio.
physik,9,13 2,1973.
1249. Zelles, L., A model for the UV stimulation of po!!en tube growth in Pinus silvestris. Biophys/1,9, 142,1973.
1250. Zelles, L., Pollen tube growth stimulation induced by X. ray and UV light Stim. Newsl.,6,42,197.1.
1250s Zelles L., Radiation induced stimulation of clongation of pine poll:n tubes,in Fertilization in fligher Plants, Linstens. H. F , Ed., N' orth Holland, Amsterdam,1974, 1250b Zello, L., Effect of low and r.ublethal doses of N. rays and UY light on the content of nicotincamide compounds during tube grow th of Pinus 5)h estris pollen, Stim. Newsl.. 10,47.1976.
1251. Zelles, '.., Effe:t of antibiotics on UV stimulated tube growth of Pinus silvestris pollen, Radiat.
Environ. Bi:. phys.. I4,323, t977 1252. Zelles, L., Effects of low dose radiation on the tube growth of Pinus silvestris.in press.
1253. Zelles, L, and Ernst, D., Stimulation of the germination of Pinus silvestris pollen by UV radiation.
- 11. Stim. Neu 51.,4,29,1972.
1254. Zelles, L. and Ernst, D., Nodification of the effect of UV irradiation on pine pollen by isolated cell constituents, Radiat. Ensiron. Biophys, 11,271,1975.
1255. Ze!!cs, L., Ernst D. E. W., and Tiffe, H. W., Stimulation of the 1,ermination of Pinus silvestris pollen by UV radiation, Stim. Newsl.,2,54,1971.
1256. Zelles, L. and Fendrik, I., The stimulating effect of X. and gamma rays on the growth of the pollen tube of Pinus sih estris. Stim. Newsl. 6,49. I974 .
1257. Zelles, L. and Fendrik, I., Ef fect of dose rate and esposure time on the stimulation effe:t of tube grow th of Pjnus silvestris pollen, Radiat. Environ. Biophys.,12,81, t975, 1258. Zelles, L. and Scibold, H. W., Radiation induced pollen tube growth stimulation of Pinus silvestris, En viron. Exp. Bot.. I6, I 5, l976.
1259. Zelles, L., Seibold, H. W., and Ernst, D. E. W., Lo:alization of the site of action of tube growth stimulation by micro UV irradiation of pine pollen, Radiat. Environ. Biophys.,14,61,19i7 1260. Zhezhel, N. G., Ef fect of natural radioactive substances on the yield of agricultural crops, Conf.
Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R. Peaceful Uscs of Atomic Energy. Session Div. Biol. Sci., Moscow,2, lol,1955.
1261 Zhezhel, N. G., Studies on the mechanism of the biological cifeet of small doses of ionizing radiation in plants, Vestsel'Slolhoz NauA, B, 123,1958: B A 45:883S7 1262. Zhukovskii, M. O., Rev. Psych., 1,801,1903, cited in Livshits, N. N., Reviews of Radiobiology, U.S. Atorti: Energy Commission Report, AEC.tr.3353, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, Washing-ton, D.C.,1958,126, 1263. Zilberg. Y. G., Stimulation of the growth of fur in rabbits following singic X-ray irradiation of the skin, in Problems in Radiobiology, Pobedinskii. M. V. and Kiselev, P. N., Eds., National Science ,
Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1962,273.
1264. Zimmer, K., Altan, S., Bors, S., and Fendrik, I., Ef fects of X. rays on rooting response of cuttings, Stim. Newsl.,3,7,1971.
1265. Zirkle, R. E., Relationship between chemical and biological cffcets of ionizing radiations, Radiology, l 52,846,1949.
\
1266 Zitkle, R. E., Biological Effects of External X and Gamma Radiation, McGrau Hill, New York, 1954,28.
1267. Zirckle, R. E., Ed., Biologi:al Effects cv External X and Gartma Radiation, Office of Techti:s!
Publications, U.S. Department of Comm :c, Washington, D.C.,1956.
l 1268. Zuelzer, M., The effeet of radium rays on protoroa, Arch. ProtistenAd.,5,358, lo05.
Wft hW u and {PhMiig L Influence of colloidal movement in ce!!s of protozoa affected by radium
i 4
l l
[<-
- O o
5 I I I O.
~ I I 1 : o'
~ ,s..,.,.
o
". g
.'.'g=
, y- -'
__e
,~.
4.
.. e s
- -~
- t-._. .,3..-. .. g . _
5Q
_. . s.s. .. -
>- .,--- n v. --;
.. .~.
s.- ,- + .; -
s .ss.
. .s s,. O
- m\ ,(, s -.O. _ Ul
~ --
.&%-E M '
_ H -i P o
Hp g
00 !
.O
- ts, It
- - o
- =
6 i
i i i I t O' o i l -
8 o o o o o O to e to 8 -
eouoptoul DA!!otawns ;ou;nt luco;ad
- y- -
D
~
60 ,,. .
fI 1
e s / s. a 1
' /
~
70 - l ff
[I
. /$'
so- ;!,.? f/.4 -
. ./o (9 O 9,f a o
9 -/N 3 C3 i r
g 50-A /o '
g/. q o
v I
i .
/^e+)
e l
/ /7 4 f .
[ /D ' !
O 40m o _
E / ctass l .. o ,,
5 2 ~ ""
CLt SS l
,, / / Ct.A5g
' l /
OI?Y/, , '..N.W). ' , ; ; o'& ',
f zo l .
. . 7 / ,. . y ' .,:., _/ ,// ,
x y',
t _. ..
j; .- / , ,
- _
.* 7. ; ; ' / , ., , , , . ./ /,/
2O[ [/ --
i
/ / ~
ll 7 /j ~ - - ,'
~
30 h CLASS 4 CLASS S
I I I I I I t I I !
O '
30,000 40,000 O 5,000 10.000 20.000 .ygOoO '
Sct Assts n-e CR , avg skelcial rods -
i 3 500.p ee sens . - -.- . j t
i l
l t
- 60. ;
i i , j , j , , t
. t i
70r--
. i 9.
i so -.
a i !
es "c .
5 SO L .
a a v '
E b
J E
" 4o]L .
30 '_
e' 63
. f' , , .= / ]
I 20
/, ,
_, f ',
// '
J
- i g.f / !
Vf9. so's s i t y . \ ! W.: * $s ~ ~t 1 10 -
G.T' 9 /
/
/ ~ ~' Q
/ ?* >- - - - ~ Fuit Rcnge 7pU/ 22070C3 !
i 1 O e/YE 1:= C} Y ~ ~T= -
I i 1 1 : i
. O 500 1000 1500 '
2003 2500 i CR , avg skete:oi roos
] i 1
1;
t .
ROBLEY EVANS INVITED
SUMMARY
(INCLUDING INT'L CASES CONSISTENT / CONFIRMING US POPULATION DATA)
"...NO RADIOGENIC TUMORS, OR OTHER EFFECTS, IN 100S OF PERSONS WHOSE EFFECTIVE INITIAL BODY BURDEN <~ 50 UCI RA-226-EO., AND WHOSE CUMULATIVE SKELETAL AVERAGE DOSE IS < ~ 1,000 RAD"
IN 1983, CENTER FOR HUMAN RADIOBIOLOGY, ESTABLISHED ( PER ROBLEY EVANS ) AS "
- IMMORTAL ORGANIZATION " FOR LIFE OF RADIUM BURDEN POPULATION, LOST FUNDING, STOPPED ISSUING ANNUAL REPORTS, STOPPED TAKING DATA IN 1986 CLOSED 1993, > 1,000 RADIUM BURDEN CASES l STILL ALIVE
( FOLLOW DEATHS BY SSN REPORTING )
l
( a EBEN BYERS MILLIONAIRE, INDUSTRIALIST, SPORTSMAN, SOCIALITE RADITHOR 1928 ( AGE 51) ;
9 3 - 4 VIALS / DAY, CASES TO FRIENDS FOR 3 YEARS i
t
BYERS' DEATH: 1932 BONE DEGENERATION, REMOVAL OF JAW i FULL PAGE, TIME MAGAZINE FDA ACHIEVES RADIATION / RADIOACTIVITY AUTHORITY PUBLIC FEAR STOPS USE OF RADIUM AND RADIATION SUPPLEMENTS AND TREATMENTS, EXCEPT BY MDS
-y RADITHOR:
1 EST 400,000 - 500,000 VIALS SOLD PLUS OTHER RADIUM ELIXERS AND MEDICAL RADIUM-THERAPY APPLICATIONS' NO FDA REPORTS FOLLOW EXPOSED POPULATIONS BYERS DEATH NOT " OVERDOSE "
US DRINKING V!ATER STANDARD:
5 PCI / L ( 2,000 PCI / YEAR )
BYERS' INGESTION: 5,000 - 10,000 uCI
( 5,000,000,000 - 10,000,000,000 PCI )
US / INT'L RADIUM-CASE DATA:
THRESHOLD ~ 50 UCI INITIAL SYSTEMIC UPTAKE AT 20% UPTAKE, ~ 250 UCI INGESTION
~ 250,000,000 PCI
[ > 400,000 VIALS RADITHOR:
1,400,000,000,000 PCI ]
T.
60 CANCERS IN 1,953 BODY-BURDEN MEASURED CASES t
42 CANCERS IN 1,468 YOUNG FEMALE DIAL PAINTERS ( NONE < ~ 2,000 RADS )
1 CANCER 1,000 - 2,000 RADS NON-DIAL PAINTER IN 347 MALES: .
3 CANCERS IN 16 CASES > 10,000 < 40,000 RADS ( NONE IN 12 CASES > 40,000 RADS )
1 10 2 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , ,
,,,,,g x m
$ [ Eh ?
4 103
- g. :
- Normal Incidence
' , ' .- g y,;-
g gig;;
. p. f .
pt.
O : Included );'. 5 S, L g _
- . 3
t - / fey 3 ., f it r ) -
E.
In
/ ~N=3
..e
'3 52 3 i i !
g - Normal / .
\
o Incidence f (4
5 Subtracted / -
4 u goa _ _
?u -
,I ,
x -
_ t
_ t .' -
_ ,I . .]
- 3 _
t -
I I
io 5 i' ' i ' ' ' ' ' l ' ''"
I 10 100 1000 Average Skeletal Dose (gray)
Figure 1. Incidence of head carcinomas in female luminisers.
Thomas, J. Radiol. Prot.,1994
q Table 4.14 Observed (O) and expected (E) numbers of deaths (1960-
- 85) from selected causes among female radium luminizers in the UK Cause Observed Expected Ratio p All causes of death 243 268.74 All causes except cancer 0.90 0.106 148 182.75 0.81 All cancers 0.01 95 85.99 1.10 All cancers except breast cancer 0.331 67 65.49 1.02 Breast cancer 0.853 28 20.50 1.37 Leukemia . 0.097 0 1.93 .0 Osteosarcoma 0.276 1 0.17 5.83 0.158 From Baverstock and Papworth (1989). Copyright @ British Institute of Radiology. London. Reproduced with permission
Frof Zbigniew Jaworowski (Regulatory Tox. and Pharm.1995*): '
"The recognition by UNSCEAR, the most distinguished international i scientific body on... ionizing radiation, of the possibility that low t doses of radiation may result in changes in cells and organisms which reflect an ability to adapt to the effects of radiation, may inspire the authorities to begin a more realistic approach to problems of estimating and managing the risks of ionizing radiation. The past 4 decades witnessed regulatory activity, stemming from the linearity i principle, steadily decreasing radiation standards to an absurd subnatural level of 1 mSv per year. The time is ripe for renunciation of the linearity principle in radiation protection of the public and for considering a practical threshold dose as a basis for radiation standards."
- " Stimulating Effects of lonizing Radiation: New issue for Regulatory Policy", 22,172-179 i
Prof Gunnar Walinder (1996)-
"I have found and adduced arguments for that the pretentions to l knowledge about low-dose transformations of cells into malignant phenotypes are inconsistent with modern oncology as well as entirely futile on purely epistemological grounds. ... modern oncology i has clearly shown that the contribution of a small (non-dominant) radiation dose is not a stochastic event but a highly conditional one. i "Furthermore a malignant cell transformation is not synonymous t with cancer. ...what the Nobel Laureate Murry Gell-Mann... ' cancer is a multiiterative process in a highly complex, adaptive system."
"It is difficult for me to understand how people can believe that such an enormously complex phenomenon as the dose-response of radiogenic cancer can be adequately identified with an equation of the first degree. ... it is stated that it is linear. ... a ' fact' that '
permits us to extrapolate or interpolate the ovserved data even outside the dose area within which we have made our observations.
"I don't hesitate to say that this is one of the great scientific scandals of our century."
Principles and Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection A Summary Report of NCRP Report No.121 Presented to Joint Subcommittee Meeting of Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste March 26,1996 l
Ronald L. Kathren, Chairman, NCRP Scientific Committee SC1-3 on Collective Doses Professor of Health Physics Washington State University y WashingtonStateUniversity M Tri-Cities
i i s
Scientific Committee SC1-3 ,
i Ronald L. Kathren, Chairman i i Washington State University i I Richland, Washington Barbara J. McNeill '
i John R. Johnson i i Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Harvard Medical School ,
i Richland, WA Boston, MA ,
i '
Dade W. Moeller Keith J. Schlager i Harvard School of Public Health University of Utah i
,' Boston, MA Salt Lake City, UT i l Roy E. Shore Robert Ullrich i New York University Medical Center University of Texas ,
i New York, NY Galveston, TX ,
' i David A. Waite NCRP Scientific Committee 1 Liaison: i Ebasco Environmental Eric J. Hall i
' Columbia University '
' Bellevue, WA '
New York, NY i William M. Beckner, NCRP Secretariat ,
i '
i i i
SC1-3 Report on Collective Dose in Radiation Protection i
Contents '
i
+ introduction + Conclusions
+ Historical Development + Glossary
+ Scientific Bases + References
+ Limitations
+ Risk Assessment and Management t
i i
t
] WashingtonStateUniversity m Tri-Cities
i I I I I I I I l
l Scientific Bases l l
1 I I I I I I I l ,
i
- r. _ _
Evidence consistent with a linear '
i no threshold response at low doses but.. . . I l l I I I I I I I I I I I I i ] WashingtonStateUniversity i i m Tri-Cities I 1 1 I
l r" ,
... few experimental studies, and essentially no human data, can be said to prove or even provide direct support for the concept of collective dose..." ;
L
] Washington StateUniversity M Tri-Cities
k . ,
f . L e
e e b i
v h t n t
s u e t r o t c eit vc m a l
e oe t e
s i
b v
l o eo o o sr d C n op o dn n t n o e w oi tt oio i v o t l a g l sa ai nd at y
nc l
oa o n t n
oi p l
ir t t e e s i
t r n ed i ct c ap oi pn s n i n e f fufe tA i ore r op s f pc pe e m e s d e e n e bi tc y i
s n b o L r t o i i s
l c l t s si r aD t sf ate un e v
u uo i ca g r mmr i i n
t p meg oes e e U
t e
k n st a e
l s o o oe t Rr a S
c i i B d Dd n o
n t g
o i n
h e s
C i
+ +
t
+ s c i
a i r
- WT m
]a m m
m
Practical Limitations On Collective Dose Application
+ Tissue weighting factors
+ Population characterization
+ Exposure pathway characterization
+ Individual contributions limited to known stochastic risk coefficients
+ Differentiates between societal risk (addressed by collective dose) and individual risk (addressed by NID) g WashingtonStateUniversity M Tri-Cities
CRisk Assessment and ManagemenD k .A Basis: Years of life lost M Must consider various factors related to the l exposure, including the characteristics of the group, dose distribution and the use of dose as a surrogate for risk k Poses question : "How much of current human resources are we willing to trade for future human resources?"
y WashingtonStateUniversity m Tri-Cities
Summary of Recommendations
- 1. Collective dose is but one means for assessing the acceptablility of a facility or practice.
- 2. Regulatory limits should not be set in terms of collective dose.
- 3. Collective dose application should be limited:
stochastic effects dose range in which risk and dose are proportional and dose rate independent
! g wasmnotonstateumversity m Tri-Cities
Summary of Recommendations .
" cont'd" i
- 4. Population uncertainties now and in future must be considered. Projection to future populations must recognize the large uncertainties from unpredictoble changes
- 5. When collective dose is smaller than the reciprocal of the relevant risk coefficient, should note that most likely number of excess cancer deaths is zero.
{ WashingtonStateUniversity
@ j i
kB REG I b A
so i s :
% 8
%o
/ ;
POSITIVE HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW LEVEL RADIATION
...AND WHY I Myron Pollycove, M.D.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Visiti.ng Medical Fellow Professor Emeritus of Laboratory Medicine and Radiology University of California San Francisco a!
~ .f i il f t l,l llllfl l
l e
R%
E C
N C
r e
c n
h t
w o
r r
o m
u A a G T C C G
N I
S U
, < 4 A -
C- ,
N O
I T
A T c 4
U i %s
'f M hN k C
I T
A M
O S
% i s
s u
e c
n
a.4 4e.& 4 e.u.h L.-a.a1---1.am a,a4.h m_o e benL-m6mA4%^b# h e.A h44-4A h*h4%-e.A-hhh*4+Wa.W64 h 4- be MM E -#a "'49*
- h m a-Mh4A W 4.AMa. h. a.wa M m._m w_m A _h m emGa- -s aA hh.s. m 4 4 . e.&.S. 4h m..A 4m th.& 4 _Lmsaa-e I
Excess 2 -
Fatal o 0 Cancer Risk 1
(%) 9' 0 1b0 200 Dose (Rads) ,
Table 1. Summary of Mortality, Standard Mortality Rate and 95'A Confidence Interval for NW,3, NW<3 and NNW Shipyard Workers Cause of NW> 5 NW< 3 NNW Death All Causes 2,797 1,168 4,453 SMR 0.76 0.81 .
1.00 (95 % C.I.) (0.73, 0.79) (0.76, 0.86) (0.97, 1.03)
Leukemia 21 4 29
- SMR 0.91 0.42 0.97 (95% C.I.) (0.56, 1.39) (0.11, 1.07) (0.65, 1.39)
LHC* 50 13 84 SMR 0.82 0.~53 1.1 (95% C.I.) (0.61, 1.08) (0.28, 0.91) (0.88, 1.37)
Mesothelioma 18 8 10 SMR 5.49 6.14 2.54 (95% C.I.) (3.03, 8.08) (2.48, 11.33) (1.16, 4.43)
Lung Cancer 237 98 306 SMR 1.07 1.11 1.15 (95% C.I.) (0.94, 1.21) 0.90, 1.35) (1.02, 1.29)
- Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Cancers i
Dose-resaonse Analysis of Atomic Bomb Survivors Exposed to Low-level Radiation A comparison of dose-effect relationships among various dose levels in the less-than-0.5-Sv region fails to indicate the presence of hormesis.
by Yukiko Shimisu.' Hiroo Kato,'
William J. Schull,'and gggy update Autumn 1992 Kiyohiko Mabuchi'
\
i 1.3 - Noncancer mortahty Leukemia 2.5 -
12 -
g.;;.,--.
wee. eme m.w.o ew.v.a 2.0 - "*.* * <
- o sv ,
.s 1 s s )
11 "~'
. o E 15 -
- 1.o .
R
"" I e
1.0 <qd d - -- 0.9 --
e s "b v ouseme moe. o w oss' -
O.8 0.5 --
v.. me m w oss.
07 -
' I ' l ' l ' I # I I I I I 00 00 l/
OO 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 02 0.3 0.6 08 I
Radiation dose (Sv) Radiation dose (Sv) ,
Leukemia 1.3 - e Noncancer morW 2.5 -
1.2 -
2.0 -
, 1.1 ,, o x $
8 15 -
g 3o gN _
- f 3 3 C 0.9
~
10
= s s/ \ 3rd Quanile 1.20 " *\. / / 9 \ . ,- N ./ 3rd Quanile !'\ % 60
- s, / ,
+ \,, ,,
- s ,
E . k . N/ i* < t g- .\,
- $0 f- Q I!. -
g ,, + k / / N' 0.80 - I .i , < 40 - ' " " "
- k /\ / '
- s / "
N U - -/ + e* . / , N e.o \/ g ist Quanile + < J " 0.60 - 0 7pg c_ - - - - r- c Corrected for smoking N.... .2 . . . , , , , , , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20 1.50 (c) Female g _. (d) ,/ 3rd Quanile Theory >= - 3rd Quanile Theory */ j ^ ' 16 ~ s' I 20 - l h \ # \* / s \ \/,/ ? - - 3 7 - y _ s,Y%,/ . 12 <#"- - \ 0.90 d _ \. , . _ \. ~ .. ~s , , { ~ _\ - g $ pg yT *+ , ,, g7 c - i 1 x\ s - 1 - jg - - 7 0.60 - , \fg ' s + < - ist (Na[ nile *\ 1st Quanile U - \. , EO i 3
- d 4 -
0.30 - Corrected for smoking t I i 1 9 i i i i i I f I 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean Radon Level, r(pCiL-3) Lung cancer mortality rates compared with mean home radon levels by U.S. county, and )arison with presumed linear model by BEIR ;/. Estimated Spontaneous DNA j Degradation Events (Cell /h)8 . i Single-strand Double-strand Reaction DNA DNA Depurination 4000 1000 Depyrimidination 200 50 Deamination of cytosine 4000 15 , i Chain break resulting i from depurination 1000 Direct chain break 4000 " Calculated from Shapiro (14). DNA Damage Events per Mammalian Cell Spontaneous DNA Damage Events DNA Character of Event Per Second Per Hour Per Year Damage /cGyo Single-strand breaks 1.4 ~5 x 103 ~4.4 x 107 10 Double-strand breaks 0.4 Depurination and/or ~1.5 x 103 ~1.4 x 107 base lesions 0.8 ~1.25 x 103 ~1.1 x 107 9.5 Total events 2.2 ~8.0 x 103 ~7 x 107 ~20 cGy equivalents (1cGy = 100 events)b 0.022 8.0 x 101 7 x 10s From Ward (20). "Since other radiation-induced DNA damage such as DNA-protein crosslinking and base i modifications (18) occur,100 events /cGy is used as a "ballpark" value for ease of comparison with spontaneous events. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 200 ~ In vitm in wm 180- 140 - ' 160 - 120 - 6 140- n t, m m 100 -1> E 120 - E 2 2 I m m m-1 w 1004 m ! E E e i m 80 - m 60 - 1 60 - 1 - C e C l e_ \ m. 20 - 20 - 0 , , , , , , , , 0 , , , , , , i 0 03 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DOSE (Gy) DOSE (Gy) Figen ENect of radiation as mouse spleale cells primed with .eatigente sheep red t4ood cells. Results en expnesed as the mesa per cent change la peak antigen response relative to the highest responder smup (MIS] UNSCEAR ~ - l 0 Gy; 10 2 treated tumour cells _5 0.15 Gy; 10 2 treated tumour cells O Control group 250 - -- p 200 - -'l B
- B
. v l ua N G 150 - -' l a: -
- D !
O ~ 2 h 100- -' I 50 - J - 1 l 0 k l 12 14 16 18 20 26 1 Days after inoculation of viable tumour cells l w<u a m .- . . ., ,, . ...- < . , w s. m . m - . ~ c, a. . . s..c, . . e . w, i, , ... r. ., ,. . ,. . .. receive - s .-,51.cell. d 104 ..tre.t.d .ere fallowed for t o.r se A ca. tral gro.y did .at rece6ve .ieousyct.4re.t.d ceNs. 144) _________.,_.__.__-_.3 e g~ l @ ' .l. 5 i:..w A A
- 3. g' ~
4 b%4 m II - ,er. .' kg = ! e kb r 4 . ,e
- .q p
y ~ ,. .,s .? e . aryggog9m , Figure 1 shows Ga scintigrass for a 64-year-old aan with stage III T cell lyshosa (diffuse large cell types before and after TBI alone (case 1). He had sultiple tusors in the ri.ght tonsil, bilateral cervical and inguinal regions. and received thrice-a-week TBI with 0.lGy/ fraction and a total dose of 1. 5 Gy. It is found that the 67 Ga uptakes by the tumor in the cervical region al-most disappeared. Figure 2 shows CT scans for a 61-year-old woman with stage I lymphoaa ' diffuse large cell types before and after HBI alone icase 21. She had a tusor in the nasal cavity and received twice-a-meek HBI with 0.15Gy/f racticr. and a total dose of 1.5 Gy. Most of the tumor in the nasal cavity uhite arrowl disappeared in the right picture. It is very interesting that this tusor was completely outside the HBI field. s se ee k, 4. a, . is se ' 5 ., . O 1' 24*91 h $ Case 1:Ga scintigrass of Case 2:CT scans of the nasal the head & neck before (top) and cavity before (left) and after (right) after (bottoni TBl. HBI. NORMAL REPAIR MECHANISMS i Background Radiation ~ Up Regulation of Genes Cross-Activation of Genes ' andTheirinfluence on Cell and Stress Response Cycle Kinetics Proteins by Low-Dose , Radiation, UV, Chemicals, ' and Heat Shock Activation of Genes and Their Enzyme Products Activation of Membrane that Repair DNA Defects Receptors and Release of Growth Factors Proliferation of immune System Spleen and Removal of Toxic Thymus Cells Radicals f f i s 4 i i n J EC M ^ 8M J REPAIR MECHANISMS High Dose Radiation ,:......'!Y:..:....':.'!.:.. . ...r. .. .. . .:: .:...... . .
- .l..
- !! .;..:ii Cross-Activation of Genes Up Regulation of Genes :: i!.;. :ii and Stress Response
- :. . .2'ti.
andTheirinfluence on Cell ..
- 2't!.. '.
.. . . J.:.:::' ... :- Proteins by Low-Dose l Cycle Kinetics ' :.: : .: '.{.. ' .:lll.i:::. ::':.':.'l{!. :.{!( ' ' :. . . .::- . ..' Radiatior- UV,Chemicais, ! . ::.:::::. .... :. .:. ::::.: :::::: :: i::: *.; ' . i:::::: ':.:*:. .
- :: " :; D;.;..;ii..
. : .:.:.::::::: . and Heat Shock '
- .: ,l-lG
- ': i:..
.{G .'i 2' t i .
- Ji:. -
Activation of Genes and ^' .. ?.:.:::::::;.::. :.. . Y : '.' '. - Their Enzyme Products .:.. :: :.. .: .'. . ~ ::. :.; Act.ivat. ion of Membrane that Repa.sr DNA Defects Receptors and Release of Growth Factors Decreased Proliferation of
- ".:::.:i;4 :lll.;:.:. . . .'i.. .G . ;
Decreased Removal Immune System Spleen and .... . :.):::.::...y :. .:. ::::. J:. ' . . ' .1: :' .
- .2. .i'.l<: ii . d:.;!..!: of Toxic Radicals Thymus Cells ...
l l l I l : i DNA REPAIR CAPACITY l Age and Basal Cell Carcinoma l 9 O BCC Case O Control > 8- .t : e - - CO <7- i O i 6 i i i i i 20-40 41-50 51-60 l Age at Onset : 6 i i INCREASED REPAIR MECHANISMS Low Dose Radiation l Cross-Activation of Genes Up-Regulation of Genes and Stress Response andTimirinfluence on Cell Proteins by Low-Dose Cycle Kinetics Radiation, UV, Chemicals, and Heat Shock Activation of Genes and Their Enzyme Products - Activation of Membrane that Repair DNA Defects ' Receptors and Release of Growth Factors Increased Proliferation of Enhanced Removal of i Immune System Spleen and Toxic Radicals Thymus Cells i i K.T. Bogen: Cytodynamic 2-Stage (CD2) Model of i Lung Carcinogenesis by inhaled Radon i i g do bo l dg bg = b(1 -fg) de be il h O O W l ! l D i S'Y bs , P' &p2 6 3 M _!lI l ii i !l l i J L InG(t) i; l t____________ _______________ _____l dg bg da bo p p bo 2 V 4 R- -+ bg ' Q , 3 i ' I K.T. Bogen: CD2 Model Fit to Both High Dose Data of Uranium Miners (Beir IV) Low Dose Data of US Residents (B. Cohen) x 1.................... ..............,.... en - E 0.8 - e i BEIR IV i .2 4.* 0.6 - cc :- g 0.4 . m 0.2 : 1: CD2 i
- .1 o : ::- ..
O ~'- '~ m 0 kq!-(I : - co . tem' ',< " l 2 0 -0.2 m 1' o c 0.4 ..-- f = U.S. County Data -
- . . . . "i . . . ". i ............i........i....:
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 Radon Concentration (pCi/L) / Radiation Hormesis
RESPONSE
DEATH NORE CANCER g\ Nb
~
NORMAL ZEP 1
LESS CANCER HORMESIS I
> n =
q, 1 o I to 10 0 1000 DOSE, cGY Three models for dose-response curves. The responses on the ordinate are the opposite from those in other chapters. This follows classic cancer presentations.
i SCIENCE: IMAGINATION AND OBSERVATION "In general we look for a new law by the following process: I First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation with nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It :
does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is . It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is if it disagrees with ,
experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."
Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics i California institute of Technology Nobel Prize for Physics in 1965 Feynman, R.P. The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press, Cambridge MA,1965)
POSITIVE HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIATION
...AND WHY MYRON POLLYCOVE, MD U.S. NRC VISITING MEDICAL FELLOW JOINT ACRS/ACNW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIATION MARCH 26, 1996 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND The increased incidence of cancer observed during the fifties in atomic bomb survivors that received high-level radiation was consistent with our knowledge of radiochemistry and the newly discovered molecular structure of DNA. The damage to DNA and the risk of cancer were both proportional to radiation dose.
Since some mutations of DNA initiated cellular changes that could be promoted and induce cancer, it was reasonable in the absence of low-level data, to postulate a linear, no threshold model as an upper limit to the risk of cancer induction. Though epidemiologic surveys in the United States, Brazil, India, and China consistently observed less mortality and less cancer in high background populations than in low background populations, these findings were discounted because of lack of individual dosimetry, strict controls, unreliable public health data, and inadequate consideration of confounding factors.
Recently, however, the positive health effects of decreased mortality and decreased cancer in human populations exposed to low-level radiation have been observed in large populations with high statistical power and careful consideration of controls: US Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study' , US-Japan Atomic Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF)2, Canadian Breast Cancer Fluoroscopy Study 3
, and the University of Pittsburgh Residential Study' The UNSCEAR 1994 Report provides extensive documentation of many cellular repair mechanisms, including the immune system that are stimulated by low dose radiation. Nevertheless, a positive health effect is considered implausible.
"As to the biological plausibility of a radiation-induced adaptive response, it is recognized that the effectiveness of DNA repair iN mammalian cells is not absolute... An important question, therefore, is to judge the balance between stimulated cellular repair and residual damage." 5
, ,O, ? ,< ,
dp (f U V " , .-
This reasoning focuses upon the DNA mutations produced by radiation and ignores the normal presence of a very high background of equivalent DNA mutations unrelated to radiation. Each day intrinsic human metabolism produces 240,000 (10'/ cell /h) DNA mutations in each cell of our body' During youth and middle age these are repaired effectively and cancer occurs infrequently. A low radiation dose of 20 rem stimulates repair by 50-100% and on that day adds only 400 mutations (20 mutations /cGy)7 to the similar intrinsic 240,000 mutations occurring in each cell. However, a high dose of 200 rem depresses repair by approximately 40-50% while adding only 4000 mutations to the daily normal background of 240,000 similar mutations.
It is the reduced ability of our repair mechanisms to correct the large number of intrinsic metabolic mutations that increases the risk of developing cancer.
Genetic impd ement of DNA repair capacity results in death from cancer at an early ages) Loss of DNA repair capacity that occurs with aging increases the risk of developing cancer' Similarly, high-dose radiation impairment of the cell's DNA repair mechanisms also increases the risk of developing cancer5 The health effects of radiation are determined by the dose response of cellular function including DNA repair mechanisms, not by the relatively few DNA mutations produced, even by high-level radiation doses.
The use of biologically based mathematical models that include the high intrinsic background of DNA mutations and DNA repair mechanisms that are stimulated by low-level radiation and depressed by high-level radiation, generate predictions of cancer incidence that are in agreement with the epidemiologic observations of the positive health effects of low-level radiation, especially those of B. Cohen' and the negative health effects of high-level radiation The prediction of cancer risk by the biologically based model is remarkably similar to the diagrammatic prediction by Dr.
T.D. Luckey based upon numerous experiments and epidemiologic observations throughout the world" The key to science is the necessary agreement of both imagination and observation. As Professor of Theoretical Physics Richard P. Feynman put it, "It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not made any difference how smart you are, who make the guess, or what his name is
- if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it'2
'. i l
REFERENCES
- 1. Matanoski, G.M., Health effects of low-level radiation in shipyard workers final report, June 1991. DOE DE-ACO2-79 EV10095 (1991).
Cameron J. "The Good News about low Level Radiation Exposure: Health Effects of Low Level Radiation in Shipyard Workers," Health Phys. Soc.
Newsletter 20:9 (1992).
- 2. Shimizu, Y., H. Kato, W.J. Schull, and K. Mabuchi. " Dose-Response Analysis of Atomic Bomb Survivors Exposed to Low-Level Radiation,"
Health Physics Society Newsletter 21:1 (1992); RERF Update 4,3:3(1992).
- 3. Miller, A.B., G.R. Howe, G.J. Sherman, J.P. Lindsay, M.J. Yaffe, P.J.
Dinner, H.A. Risch, and D.L. Preston. " Mortality from Breast Cancer after Irradiation during Fluoroscopic Examinations in Patients Being Treated for Tuberculosis," New England Journal of Med. 321:1285(1989).
- 4. Cohen, B.L. " Test of the Linear-No Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis in the Low Dose, Low Dose Rate Region," Health Phys 68:15f(1995).
- 5. UNSCEAR 1994(United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). Annex B: Adaptive responses to radiation in cells and organisms. Document A/AC.82/R.542, approved 11 March 1994.
)
- 6. Billen D. Spontaneous DNA damage and its significance for the
" Negligible Dose" controversy in radiation protection. Radiat. Res 124:242(1990).
- 7. (a) Ward JF Radiation chemical methods of cell death. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Radiation Research (E.M.
Fielden, J.F. Fowler, J.H. Hendry, and D. Scott, Eds.), Taylor and Francis, London, Vol. II, pp. 162-168(1987)
(b) Ward JF DNA damage produced by ionizing radiation in mamalian cells: Identities, mechanisms of formation, and repairability.
Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol. 35:95(1988). l
- 8. Koshland DE, Sancar A, Hanawalt PC, Modrich P. DNA repair enzymes and !
mechanisms. Science 266:1925-1927, 1954-1960(1994). l l
- 9. Quingyi W. DNA repair and aging in basal cell carcinoma: A molecular i epidemiology study. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:1614(1993). I
- 10. Bogen KT. A cytodynamic two-stage model that predicts radon hormesis (decreased, then increased lung-cancer risk vs exposure). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Preprint UCRL-JC-123219(1996).
i
- 11. Luckey, TD. Radiation Hormesis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (1991).
- 12. Feynman RP. The Character of Physical Law. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1965).
!