Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning; Proposed Rule NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend

its regulations regarding decommissioning of licensed facilities to

provide specific radiological criteria for the decommissioning of lands

and structures.

The proposed criteria would apply to the decommissioning of all

licensed facilities and facilities subject to the Commission's

jurisdiction. The Commission expects to apply these criteria in

determining the adequacy of remediation of residual radioactivity

resulting from the possession or use of source, byproduct, and special

nuclear material. For high-level and low-level waste disposal

facilities, the criteria would apply only to ancillary surface

facilities that support radioactive waste disposal activities because

criteria for closure of the remainder of the facility and termination

of the license are currently specified. For uranium mills, the criteria

apply to decommissioning of the facility but not to soil cleanup and

the disposal of uranium mill tailings. The criteria would apply to

decommissioning of nuclear facilities that operate through their normal

lifetime, as well as to those that may be shut down prematurely.

However, they would not apply to sites already covered by a

decommissioning plan approved by the Commission before the effective

date of this rule, if it is adopted in final form.

The intent of this rulemaking is to provide a clear and consistent

regulatory basis for determining the extent to which lands and

structures must be remediated before a site can be considered

decommissioned. The Commission believes that inclusion of criteria in

the regulations would result in more efficient and consistent licensing

actions related to the numerous and frequently complex site remediation

and decommissioning activities anticipated in the future. The

Commission has reassessed the basis for the residual contamination

levels contained in existing guidance in light of changes in basic

radiation protection standards, improvements in remediation and

radiation detection technologies, decommissioning experience obtained

during the past 15 years, and comments received from workshops held as

part of this rulemaking effort.

The NRC presently allows decommissioning on a site-specific basis

using existing guidance. However, the Commission believes that

codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in the regulations

would allow the NRC to more effectively carry out its function of

protecting public health and the environment at decommissioned sites by

providing for more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources,

consistent application across all types of licenses, and a predictable

basis for decommissioning planning. In addition it would eliminate

protracted delays in decommissioning which result as licensees wait for

NRC to promulgate regulatory criteria before proceeding with

decommissioning of their facilities.

DATES: Submit comments December 20, 1994. Comments received after this

date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission

is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before

this date.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or

Wordperfect format, by calling the NRC Enhanced Participatory

Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning Electronic

Bulletin Board, 1-800-880-6091 (58 FR 37760; July 13, 1993). The

bulletin board may be accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and

most commonly available communications software packages. Communication

software parameters should be set as follows: parity to none, data bits

to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1). Use ANSI or VT-100 terminal

emulation. Background documents on the rulemaking are also available

for downloading and viewing on the bulletin board. For more information

call Ms. Christine Daily, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555. Phone (301) 415-6026; FAX (301) 415-5385.

Documents related to this rulemaking may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Many of these documents may also be viewed and downloaded

electronically via the Electronic Bulletin Board established by NRC for

this rulemaking.

Single copies of the regulatory analysis may be obtained by written

request from RPHEB Secretary, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Single copies of the draft generic environmental impact statement

(NUREG-1496): ``Background as a Residual Radioactivity Criterion for

Decommissioning, Appendix A to the GEIS in Support of Radiological

Criteria for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1501); or the

staff's working draft regulatory guidance (NUREG-1500) may be obtained

by written request or telefax (301-504-2260) from: Distribution

Services, Printing and Mail Services Branch, Office of Administration,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

The NRC requests public comment on the draft generic environmental

impact statement (NUREG-1496). Comments on NUREG-1496 may be submitted

to: Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of

Information and Publication Services, Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Hand deliver comments on

NUREG-1496 to 11545 Rockville Pike, Maryland between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15

p.m. on Federal workdays. Comments on NUREG-1496 may be submitted

electronically as indicated elsewhere under the ADDRESSES heading.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James C. Malaro, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

20555, telephone (301) 415-6201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part

20 of its regulations to provide specific radiological criteria for the

decommissioning of lands and structures.

The NRC is using an enhanced participatory process for developing

the criteria. This process included a series of seven workshops held

from January through May 1993. The workshops were conducted at a very

early stage of rulemaking to enhance participation of interested

parties and the public with the following objectives: (a) To ensure

that the relevant issues have been identified; (b) to exchange

information on these issues; and (c) to identify underlying concerns

and areas of disagreement, and, where possible, approaches for

resolution. In July 1993, the NRC staff also conducted eight scoping

meetings for the development of the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement (GEIS) supporting the rulemaking.

The proposed criteria would apply to the decommissioning of all

facilities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, and 72,

as well as other facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction

under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (AEA) and the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974. The Commission would apply these criteria

in situations where remediation of radioactive material residues

resulting from use or possession of Source, Byproduct, and Special

Nuclear Material is undertaken. For high-level and low-level waste

disposal facilities (10 CFR Parts 60 and 61), the criteria would apply

only to ancillary surface facilities that support radioactive waste

disposal activities because criteria for closure of the remainder of

the facility and termination of the license are specified in 10 CFR

Parts 60 and 61. For uranium mills, the criteria would apply to

decommissioning of the facility but not to soil cleanup or the disposal

of uranium mill tailings, which is covered in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part

40 and Environmental Protection Agency standards in 40 CFR Part 192.

The criteria would apply to decommissioning of nuclear facilities that

operate through their normal lifetime, as well as to those that may be

shut down prematurely. However, they would not apply to sites currently

covered by a decommissioning plan approved by the Commission before the

effective date of this rule, if it is adopted as a final rule.

The purpose of the rulemaking is to ensure that decommissioning

will be carried out without undue impact on public and occupational

health and safety and the environment. The proposed amendments enhance

the existing regulatory framework by providing a clear and consistent

regulatory basis for determining the extent to which lands and

structures must be remediated before a site can be decommissioned. The

Commission believes that inclusion of criteria in the regulations would

result in more efficient and consistent licensing actions related to

the numerous and frequently complex site decontamination and

decommissioning activities anticipated in the future. The Commission

has developed the basis for the residual contamination levels in light

of changes in basic radiation protection standards, improvements in

remediation and radiation detection technologies, decommissioning

experience obtained during the past 15 years, and comments received

from workshops held as part of this rulemaking effort.

Current regulations do not explicitly address radiological criteria

for decommissioning.\1\ The NRC presently allows decommissioning on a

site-specific basis using existing guidance.\2\ However, the Commission

believes that codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in

the regulations would allow the NRC to more effectively carry out its

function of protecting public health and the environment at

decommissioned sites by providing for more efficient use of NRC and

licensee resources, consistent application across all types of

licenses, and a predictable basis for decommissioning planning. In

addition, it would eliminate protracted delays in decommissioning which

result as licensees wait for NRC to promulgate regulatory criteria

before proceeding with decommissioning of their facilities.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\On June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018), the Commission published a

final rule on General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear

Facilities. However, this rule did not specifically address

radiological criteria for decommissioned sites.

\2\Regulatory guidance, criteria, and practices include the

following with emphasis on contamination levels that are As Low as

Reasonably Achievable (ALARA): ``Disposal or On-site Storage of

Thorium or Uranium from Past Operations'' Branch Technical Position,

October 23, 1981, 46 FR 52061; ``Termination of Byproduct, Source,

and Special Nuclear Materials Licenses,'' Policy and Guidance

Directive FC 83-23, November 4, 1983; ``Termination of Operating

Licenses for Nuclear Reactors'' Regulatory Guide 1.86, June 1974;

letter to Stanford University from James R. Miller, Chief,

Standardization and Special Projects Branch, Division of Licensing,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Docket No. 50-141, April

21, 1982; ``National Primary Drinking Water Standards,'' 40 CFR 141;

``Radiation Dose Guidelines for Protection Against Transuranium

Elements Present in the Environment as a Result of Unplanned

Contamination,'' 42 FR 60956, November 30, 1977. Guidance is

specified in terms of acceptable levels of residual contamination at

decommissioned sites.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the statutory

responsibility for protection of health and safety and the environment

related to the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special

nuclear material under the AEA. One part of NRC's responsibility is to

ensure safe and timely decommissioning of the nuclear facilities that

it licenses and to provide guidance to licensees on how to plan for and

prepare their sites for decommissioning. Decommissioning, as previously

defined by the NRC, means to remove nuclear facilities safely from

service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits

release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the

license.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\See, for example, 10 CFR 40.4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the AEA and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory responsibility

to establish generally applicable standards for protection of the

public from radioactive material (i.e., outside the NRC licensees site

boundaries). The NRC is responsible for ensuring, through licensing

requirements and other restrictions, that activities at facilities

under NRC jurisdiction do not lead to radiation doses outside the

facility boundaries that exceed EPA's generally applicable standards.

For this reason, NRC has been coordinating closely with EPA in the

development of the proposed decommissioning standards.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by NRC and EPA in March

1992 provides a basic framework within which NRC and EPA will endeavor

to resolve issues of concern relating to the regulation of

radionuclides in the environment. Under the guidelines of the MOU, EPA

will make a determination as to whether the proposed decommissioning

standards provide a sufficient level of protection for public health

and safety and the environment. If EPA concludes that the NRC standards

are sufficient, EPA will publish its findings in the Federal Register

for notice and comment and propose that NRC licensees be exempt from

the standards developed by EPA for non-NRC licensed facilities.

Decommissioning activities are initiated when a licensee decides to

terminate licensed activities. Decommissioning activities do not

include the removal and disposal of spent fuel, which is considered to

be an operational activity or the removal and disposal of

nonradioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to

terminate the NRC license. Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste

not necessary for NRC license termination is not covered by these

regulations but would be treated by other appropriate agencies having

responsibility over these wastes. If nuclear facilities are to be

reused for nuclear purposes, applications for license renewal or

amendment, or for a new license are to be submitted according to the

appropriate existing regulation. Reuse of a nuclear facility for other

nuclear purposes is not considered decommissioning because the facility

remains under license.

After licensed activities have ceased, licensees are required to

decommission their facilities so that their licenses can be terminated.

At present, this requires that radioactivity in land, groundwater,

surface water, buildings, and equipment resulting from the licensed

operation be reduced to levels that allow the property to be released

for unrestricted use. Licensees must then demonstrate that all

facilities have been properly decontaminated and that, except for any

residual radiological contamination found to be acceptable to remain at

the site, radioactive material has been transferred to authorized

recipients. Confirmatory surveys are conducted by NRC, where

appropriate, to verify that sites meet NRC radiological criteria for

decommissioning.

There are currently about 22,000 licensees in the United States.

About one-third of these are NRC licensees, while the remainder are

licensed by Agreement States through agreements entered into under

Section 274 of the AEA. Licensees include utilities, nuclear fuel

fabricators, universities, medical institutions, radioactive source

manufacturers, and companies that use radioisotopes for industrial

purposes. About 75 percent of NRC's 6,700 materials licensees use

either sealed radioactive sources or small amounts of short-lived

radioactive materials. Sealed sources, including items such as check

sources, do not pose a contamination problem unless the encapsulation

is broken. Decommissioning of these facilities is typically simple

because there is usually little or no residual radioactive

contamination to be removed and disposed of.

Of the remaining 25 percent, certain types of facilities (e.g.,

radioactive source manufacturers, radiopharmaceutical producers, and

radioactive ore processors) conduct operations which could produce

substantial radioactive contamination in portions of the facilities. At

these sites, lands, facilities, or equipment may become contaminated

through the use of radioactive material in forms which have not been

encapsulated to prevent the spread or dispersal of material. When

radioactive material in unsealed forms is used, such as in the nuclear

fuel fabrication industry, in production of radiopharmaceutical

medicines, or in research, the equipment used to process and handle the

material becomes contaminated by the small quantities of material that

adhere to surfaces of valves, piping, etc. If material is spilled, then

the area of the spill becomes contaminated. These facilities will have

to be decontaminated to acceptable levels before they can be released

for unrestricted use and their licenses terminated. The population of

nuclear fuel cycle facilities which will require decommissioning

includes approximately 100 nuclear power plants (at 70 sites); 50 non-

power (research and test) reactors; 10 major fuel facilities (fuel

fabrication and uranium hexafluoride production plants); 50 uranium

mills; and 10 independent spent fuel storage installations. It is

estimated that about 1,800 other NRC-licensed facilities could require

significant remediation as part of decommissioning.

Essentially everything that comes in contact with radioactive

material must be considered contaminated and checked for the presence

of residual radioactive material. Areas surrounding facilities could

become contaminated by the movement of materials, equipment, and people

into and out of the areas containing the radioactive material. NRC

requires that contamination control procedures be used to minimize or

prevent the movement of radioactive materials into other areas.

Nevertheless, some areas may become contaminated over the course of

time due to breakdowns in the control procedures. Contamination may

also be spread by the movement of water or other fluids containing the

radioactive materials through or along piping, equipment, walls,

floors, sumps, drains, etc. In some cases, this has resulted in the

release of significant quantities of radioactive material into the

ground under or around buildings and facilities.

In addition to contamination, some licensed operations can produce

radioactive materials through the process of activation. In this

process, materials become radioactive when they are bombarded by

neutrons generated in certain nuclear operations. Examples of such

operations include nuclear reactors, where metal reinforcing bars in

concrete surrounding the reactor vessel may become radioactive through

neutron bombardment. These activated materials may also need to be

removed or disposed of during decommissioning.

Several hundred NRC and Agreement State licenses are terminated

each year. The majority of these licenses involve limited operations,

produce little or no radioactive contamination, and do not present

complex decommissioning problems or potential risks to public health or

the environment from residual contamination. However, as the nuclear

industry matures, it is expected that more and more of the larger

nuclear facilities that have been operating for a number of years will

reach the end of their useful lives and have to be decommissioned.

Thus, both the number and complexity of facilities that will require

decommissioning are expected to increase.

The NRC has a program underway to effect timely decommissioning of

about 50 sites, which warrant special NRC oversight either because they

have not been decommissioned properly in the past or have been engaged

in the decommissioning process for an extended period. The Commission

has established a Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP), NUREG-

1444, October 1993) for effecting timely decommissioning of these

problem facilities. Sites being handled under the SDMP vary in degree

of radiologic hazard, cleanup complexity, and cost. Some sites comprise

tens of acres that require assessment for radiological contamination,

whereas other sites have contamination known to be limited to

individual buildings or discrete piles of tailings or contaminated

soil. Many sites involve active licenses, but some sites involve

formerly licensed sites, or sites where the responsible party is unable

or unwilling to perform cleanup. These sites also vary in degree of

completion of decommissioning. At some sites, little or no

decontamination work has been done; whereas at other sites,

decommissioning is underway or license termination is in the offing.

The effort to have these SDMP sites remediated and decommissioned

has been hampered in part because licensees view the absence of

definitive radiological criteria as an incentive to defer

decommissioning pending issuance of formal NRC requirements. The

General Accounting Office (GAO), which has been critical of the

Commission's inability to effect timely decommissioning of these sites,

has recommended that the NRC enhance its decommissioning efforts by

reconsidering its radiological criteria for decommissioning.4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\GAO Report to Congress, ``NRC's Decommissioning Procedures

and Criteria Need to Be Strengthened,'' GAO/RCED-89-119, May 1989.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Until new criteria are in place, the Commission intends to proceed

with decommissioning nuclear facilities on a site-specific basis

considering existing criteria coupled with the concept that residual

radioactivity be as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Case and

activity-specific decisions concerning decommissioning of sites will

continue to be made as necessary during the pendency of this rulemaking

process. Because the SDMP sites could pose unnecessary environmental

and public risks or financial burdens if they are not decommissioned in

a timely manner, the Commission's effort to effect timely

decommissioning of these sites has been proposed in the Federal

Register on January 13, 1993, (58 FR 4099). The NRC published an Action

Plan to ensure timely remediation of sites listed in the SDMP in the

Federal Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13389). The NRC does not

intend to require additional remediation of sites in response to

criteria established in this rulemaking, provided that the licensee or

responsible party has already remediated the site or was in the process

of remediating the site in full accordance with an NRC-approved

decommissioning plan at the time of promulgation.

Internationally, most efforts have been focused upon development of

criteria for waste disposal and recycle of radioactively contaminated

materials using guidance published by the International Atomic Energy

Agency. Decommissioning criteria have generally been established on a

case-specific basis. This approach is the same as the current approach

employed in the United States pending the development of radiological

criteria through formal requirements. The NRC staff is not aware of

other international efforts similar to this rulemaking to define

radiological criteria for decommissioning.

The Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking Process

The normal pattern for NRC rulemaking is the development of a

proposed rule by the NRC staff for Commission consideration,

publication of the proposed rule for public comment, consideration of

the comments by the NRC staff, and preparation of a final rule, as

appropriate, for Commission approval. As directed and approved by the

Commission, the NRC staff has enhanced participation in the early

stages of this rulemaking process through a series of workshops for

affected interests. These workshops were held from January through May

1993 in Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA; Boston, MA; Dallas, TX;

Philadelphia, PA; Atlanta, GA; and Washington, DC. The workshops

elicited informed discussions of options and approaches for developing

radiological criteria, and the rationale for options and approaches.

While these workshops were not designed to seek ``consensus'' in the

sense that there is agreement on how each issue should be resolved, the

workshops were conducted at a very early stage of rulemaking to enhance

participation of interested parties and the public with the following

objectives:

(a) To ensure that the relevant issues have been identified;

(b) To exchange information on these issues; and

(c) To identify underlying concerns and areas of disagreement, and,

where possible, approaches for resolution.

The Commission hopes that the interactions among the participants

in the workshop environment also fostered a clearer mutual

understanding of the positions and concerns of all participants. These

workshops provided a number of themes, such as consideration of

restricted use options, increased public participation in the site

decommissioning process, and a desire to return sites to levels

indistinguishable from natural background, that form the basis upon

which the Commission has developed the provisions of this rulemaking.

Comments made at these ``Scoping Meetings,'' the workshops, and related

written comments were considered by the NRC staff in its preparation of

a staff draft rule as described in the paragraph below. Comments were

also used, as appropriate, in developing the Draft Generic

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the rule.

The Commission approved an additional opportunity for enhanced

participation at an early stage of the rule development. Copies of the

NRC staff's draft rule and summaries of comments received from workshop

participants, NUREG/CR-6156, were sent to NRC Agreement States,

workshop participants, and other interested parties on January 27,

1994. A notice of availability of these documents was published in the

Federal Register, and the documents were placed on the electronic

bulletin board on February 2, 1994 (59 FR 4868). The intent of this

informal comment period in advance of a proposed rule was to provide an

opportunity for interested parties to comment on the adequacy of the

draft criteria and the extent to which the criteria have considered the

range of viewpoints expressed during the workshops and scoping

meetings. The comment period ended on March 11, 1994.

Concurrent with the NRC rulemaking on radiological criteria for

decommissioning, the EPA is proceeding to develop standards and

guidance for Federal agencies in the area of radiation protection,

including standards for the cleanup of contaminated sites. The EPA

National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology and

the Subcommittee on Residual Radioactivity held public meetings in

October 1993, February 1994, and May 1994 to discuss the issues

associated with the EPA rulemaking. The NRC and EPA have coordinated

their efforts in this area in order to ensure that effective and

consistent site cleanup standards are established while minimizing

duplication of effort. Accordingly, the EPA was an important

participant in the NRC rulemaking workshops and is a cooperating agency

in the preparation of the GEIS for the rulemaking. The NRC has also

consulted extensively with EPA throughout the rulemaking process. It is

anticipated that the information gathered during the workshops on the

NRC standards will also be relevant and useful to the EPA efforts in

the area of site cleanup standards. The objective of the NRC and EPA

cooperative efforts is to attempt to reach an agreement that the NRC

standards established in the enhanced participatory rulemaking are

sufficient to provide adequate protection to the public health and

safety for NRC-licensed sites. The EPA efforts could then focus on the

site clean-up standards for non-NRC licensed sites, such as DOE and DOD

facilities. This is consistent with the principles and procedures set

forth in a Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and EPA

published on November 16, 1992 (57 FR 54127), to guide each agency's

actions in areas of mutual regulatory concern.

The next two sections of this notice summarize the comments from

the workshops and the comments on the NRC staff draft rule. The purpose

of these summaries is to document the public comments and the NRC

response to these comments, and to show how the NRC approach to the

rulemaking has evolved as a result of public participation in the

rulemaking process.

Comments From Workshops

On December 11, 1992 (57 FR 58727), the Commission published in the

Federal Register a notice that it was preparing to initiate rulemaking

on establishing radiological criteria for the decommissioning of NRC-

licensed facilities. The notice listed a schedule for seven workshops

throughout the United States beginning in January 1993. The purpose of

the workshops was to solicit commentary from affected interests on the

fundamental approaches and issues that must be addressed in

establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning. Written

comments on approaches and issues also were solicited.

On June 18, 1993 (58 FR 33570), the Commission published in the

Federal Register a notice of intent to prepare a Generic Environmental

Impact Statement (GEIS) as part of the rulemaking action on

radiological criteria for decommissioning. The notice listed eight

meetings throughout the United States to be held in July 1993 for the

purpose of discussing and receiving public comment on what should be

covered in the GEIS.

Overview of Comments

Over 7,000 comments were presented at the seven Workshops, eight

scoping meetings, and in related letters. The NRC staff considered

these comments in the development of the NRC staff's draft rule which

was sent to NRC Agreement States, workshop participants, and other

interested parties on January 27, 1994. Comments were also used, as

appropriate, in developing the Draft GEIS for the rule.

NRC held rulemaking workshops in Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA;

Boston, MA; Dallas, TX; Philadelphia, PA; Atlanta, GA; and Washington,

DC between January and May 1993. The workshop comments have been

summarized in NUREG/CR-6156, ``Summary of Comments Received from

Workshops on Radiation Criteria for Decommissioning.'' This report

summarizes 3,635 comments categorized from transcripts of the seven

workshops and 1,677 comments from 100 NRC docketed letters from

individuals and organizations. NUREG/CR-6156 merely catalogues the

comments and viewpoints; no analysis or response to the comments is

included.

The comments reflect a broad spectrum of viewpoints on the issues

related to radiological criteria for decommissioning and associated

subjects. The comments show little evidence of general agreement on

issues except that most parties appear to agree that (1) the rulemaking

should proceed and (2) the Commission's activities in decommissioning

should recognize that it is not reasonable to expect all nuclear

facilities to be remediated to a level that permits termination of the

license and release of the facility for unrestricted use. While a

number of additional themes emerged from the workshops, these themes

cannot be characterized as having the general agreement of all of the

workshop and meeting participants.

Transcripts of the workshops and scoping meetings and copies of

related letters are available for inspection or copying for a fee in

the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level),

Washington, DC.

The NRC also held public meetings on the scope of the GEIS during

July 1993 in Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Oklahoma City, OK; and

Cleveland, OH. Comments from these meetings were reviewed and comments

which differed substantially from those from the workshops are also

summarized in the body of NUREG/CR-6156. A summary of all of the

comments from the GEIS scoping meetings is included as Appendix E to

the GEIS.

Summary and Discussion of Comments

1. Need For and Scope of Rule

Comment. Almost all commenters supported the NRC's plans to develop

radiological decommissioning standards and recommended that the

rulemaking go forward expeditiously. Some commenters recommended that

the NRC consider and possibly establish both radiological and chemical

decommissioning standards. Most commenters stated that the NRC should

establish standards for both unrestricted and restricted release of

sites.

Response. The NRC is proceeding with a rulemaking which will

establish radiological criteria for decommissioning. NRC's schedule

calls for issuance of a final rule by May 1995.

NRC's authority is limited by law primarily to ensuring protection

of the public health and safety from radiological and nuclear hazards

associated with source, special nuclear, and byproduct material. NRC

has refrained from extending its reach to address non-radiological

hazards except where specifically authorized by Congress (e.g., uranium

mill tailings) or where these hazards would not otherwise be adequately

controlled because of a regulatory void. Consequently, NRC is not

proposing to include provisions in the radiological criteria to address

non-radiological hazards. Although the rule would not establish

criteria for disposition of nonradioactive hazardous and other wastes,

licensees are reminded that they must continue to meet applicable

Federal, State, and local standards for disposition of these wastes.

The proposed rule provides for both unrestricted release and restricted

termination of the license. If a licensee cannot satisfy the conditions

for license termination, the license will not be terminated.

2. Basis for Radiological Criteria

Comment. Several commenters recommended that NRC decommissioning

standards be based on and be consistent with the scientific information

and advice of such organizations as the National Council on Radiation

Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the International Commission on

Radiological Protection (ICRP). One commenter suggested that the NRC

should determine whether the standards are to be technologically-based

or politically-based; if the latter, do not waste time on technological

input.

Response. It should be noted that the NRC and its predecessor

agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, have generally followed the basic

radiation protection recommendations of the ICRP; its U.S. counterpart,

the NCRP; and the EPA Draft Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for

Exposure to the General public in formulating basic radiation

protection standards. Recommendations of the ICRP and the NCRP were

relied on in the revised ``Standards for Protection Against

Radiation,'' which was published May 21, 1991 (56 FR 233360), and

implemented by licensees on or before January 1, 1994. The proposed

radiological criteria for decommissioning continues this practice but

the proposed rule also recognizes the public's interest in and

potential for contributing to the decommissioning process. The public's

involvement through participating in the development of the criteria in

this rulemaking, opportunities for review of decommissioning plans, as

well as through participation on Site-Specific Advisory Boards as

specified in this rule are expected to aid in the conduct of a

decommissioning program that is understandable, technologically sound,

and responsive to the concerns of affected parties.

Comment. Several commenters recommended that the NRC consider

adopting a risk limit standard equating to a radiation dose of 25 to

100 millirem per year. According to two commenters, a 100 millirem per

year limit would increase the cancer risk in the population only

slightly above its normal incidence rate. One commenter believes that

radiation damage per unit of exposure may increase at smaller doses.

Other commenters stated that there may be a threshold for radiation

effects and that there may be no adverse health effects at low

radiation levels.

Response. In the Supplementary Information for the revised

``Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' the NRC stated that the

standards are based upon the assumptions that:

(1) Within the range of exposure conditions usually encountered in

radiation work, there is a linear relationship, without threshold,

between dose and probability of occurrence of stochastic (random)

health effects such as latent cancer and genetic effects;

(2) The severity of each type of stochastic health effect is

independent of dose; and

(3) Nonstochastic (nonrandom) radiation-induced health effects can

be prevented by limiting exposures so that doses are below the

thresholds for their induction.

In the absence of convincing evidence that there is a dose

threshold or that low levels of radiation are beneficial, the staff

believes that the assumptions regarding a linear nonthreshold dose-

effect model for cancers and genetic effects and the existence of

thresholds only for certain nonstochastic effects are prudent for

formulating radiation protection standards and planning radiation

protection programs.

The NRC staff believes the dose limits and ALARA requirements of

the proposed radiological criteria for decommissioning provide a

reasonable basis for protection of public health and safety and the

environment. However, the staff has also determined that

decommissioning activities should not be allowed the entire dose limit

of 100 mrem/y for members of the public. The staff has selected a value

which is a relatively small fraction of the limit, consistent with

other decisions of both the EPA and NRC for unrestricted access to

areas.

Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC establish a risk/

dose limit on the order of the variability of natural background

radiation occurring across the United States as its decommissioning

standard. The reasons given were that no health risks are attributable

to background radiation variations and studies show that there is no

increase in cancer incidence over a wide range of background radiation

in the U.S.

Response. The NRC staff believes that the overall objective for

decommissioning should be the return of the facility to levels

approximating background. However, the NRC staff recognizes that

demonstrating that radioisotope levels at a site are indistinguishable

from background will be a complex task involving sophisticated

sampling, measuring, and statistical analysis techniques. The NRC staff

also recognizes that the difficulty of the task can vary substantially

depending on a number of factors including the radionuclide in

question, the background level for that and other radionuclides at the

site, and the temporal and spatial variations in background radiation

at the site.

Therefore, in the draft rule, the NRC staff proposed as a goal of

the ALARA process that the Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) to

the average member of the Critical Group from all radionuclides that

could contribute to residual radioactivity and are distinguishable from

background not exceed 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) per year. Demonstration of

achieving this dose criterion would be considered as the only

demonstration necessary to meet the proposed ALARA requirements of the

rule. One of the reasons 3 millirem per year was selected is because

variations of this magnitude typically are not distinguishable from the

variation of dose from background radiation. Three mrem/y is well

within the variability of natural background radiation across the U.S.

and also within those variations experienced seasonally at particular

sites. Based upon comments received on the NRC staff draft, the

Commission has decided to remove the 3 millirem per year value from the

proposed rule (see discussion under ``Comments on NRC Staff Draft'').

3. Individual vs Collective Doses.

Comment. Several comments were made concerning how risk standards

should be applied to the population who may be exposed to residual

radioactivity at a released site. Most commenters favored applying a

risk limit to individuals and believed it unnecessary to specify a

collective dose limit (i.e., a limit on the cumulative dose in person-

rem/y to the entire exposed population). One commenter remarked that if

collective dose is used, it should be applied in a comprehensive

manner. For example, in evaluating an appropriate cleanup standard, the

doses to the public from transporting material off site for disposal

should be evaluated against the doses received by the public around the

site if the material is left in place.

Response. The NRC has considered both the collective doses to

populations and the individual doses to the average member of the most

highly exposed group of individuals (Critical Group). These

considerations are reflected in the calculations presented in the GEIS

prepared in support of this rulemaking. In the scenarios considered,

the annual collective dose is quite small. Therefore, the staff

concludes that limiting individual dose to the levels specified in the

criteria will assure that collective doses will be small and that the

public health will be adequately protected. This is consistent with

past Commission practice in establishing radiological criteria.

4. Statement of Radiological Criteria

In developing the staff's draft rule, attention was focused on four

approaches: (1) establish an annual risk or dose limit for an

individual, (2) establish an annual risk or dose goal, (3) require use

of best available technology, and (4) require return of the site to

background radioactivity.

Comment. Most commenters from State governments, the nuclear

utilities, the fuel cycle industry, the medical community and non-fuel

cycle industry, cleanup contractors, and professional society/standard

setting organizations favored a risk-based or dose-based standard over

a standard based on best available technology or return to background.

Most commenters from citizen/environmental organizations and some from

other organizations favored a return-to-background standard. Many

commenters objected to a best effort/best available technology standard

for various reasons including the belief that it would be extremely

subjective.

Response. The proposed rule would establish a dose limit for

release of the site of 15 millirem per year (mrem/y) TEDE for residual

radioactivity distinguishable from background and require that the

licensee reduce this residual radioactivity to ALARA. Sites meeting

this criterion would be considered acceptable for release for

unrestricted use and termination of the license. Fifteen mrem/y TEDE is

consistent in terms of risk with the NRC release limits for low-level

waste facilities (10 CFR 61.41), is consistent with the individual dose

protection limit in the EPA Environmental Radiation Protection

Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-

level and Transuranic Wastes, 40 CFR Part 191 (December 20, 1993; 58 FR

66398), and provides a substantial safety margin below the NRC's 100

mrem/y dose limit for individual members of the public. Use of a dose

limit is consistent with long standing NRC (and AEC) regulatory

practices for protecting radiation workers and the public. The use of a

limit also provides a clear measure for determining the acceptability

of a site and a clear basis for determinations of compliance with the

regulations.

The NRC staff agrees that the objective of decommissioning should

be to reduce residual radioactivity at a site to levels that are

indistinguishable from background. Therefore, the draft rule proposed

to establish the following goal for decommissioning within the

structure of reducing exposure below the limit to as low as reasonably

achievable:

(1) Reduce the concentration of individual radionuclides which

could contribute to residual radioactivity at the site to a level which

is indistinguishable from background;

(2) Release the site for unrestricted use; and

(3) Terminate the license.

For purposes of determining when further ALARA efforts need not be

further analyzed and documented, the Commission would consider that the

ALARA requirement has been met if the TEDE to the average member of the

critical group from all radionuclides that could contribute to residual

radioactivity and are distinguishable from background does not exceed 3

mrem (0.03 mSv) per year. Three millirem per year is a small fraction

of the NRC's 100 mrem/y dose limit for individual members of the

public, typically is not distinguishable from variations in local and

national radiation background levels, and is consistent with the

10-4 level of lifetime risk used by EPA for Superfund. Dose based

criteria were selected over risk based criteria for ease of

implementation. Based upon comments received on the NRC staff draft,

the Commission has decided to remove the numerical values of 3 millirem

per year from the proposed rule. However, the Commission remains

committed to the objective of decommissioning to levels that are

indistinguishable from background.

5. Consistency and Compatibility

Comment. Many commenters urged that all regulatory agencies (EPA,

NRC, State and local governments, etc.) use the same radiological

criteria for decommissioning and that the agencies be consistent in how

they apply the criteria. Some commenters said that the NRC's adoption

of a risk/dose limit of 100 millirem per year, with a proper

application of ALARA, would result in a 10-6 annual risk and a

10-4 lifetime risk, which would be consistent with the EPA's

Superfund remediation goals. Other commenters recommended that State

and local governments be at liberty to adopt more stringent

requirements.

Response. The NRC is hopeful that the proposed criteria developed

through the enhanced participatory rulemaking process will be

acceptable to all regulatory agencies and will be consistent and

compatible with the requirements of other regulatory agencies. The EPA

and NRC have overlapping authority in the area of developing

radiological criteria for decommissioning for nuclear sites. In

addition, decommissioned sites, if not remediated properly, could later

be subject to remedial action under EPA Superfund requirements. This is

an outcome which is viewed as undesirable by both the EPA and NRC and

is considered unlikely because the proposed NRC criteria are designed

to be consistent with the risk range incorporated in EPA's Superfund

requirements. NRC and EPA are developing decommissioning criteria in

parallel rulemaking efforts. The NRC and EPA are coordinating their

efforts in this area to ensure that effective and consistent site

decommissioning standards are established while minimizing duplication

of effort. Accordingly, the EPA was an important participant in the NRC

rulemaking workshops and is a cooperating agency in the preparation of

the GEIS for the rulemaking. The NRC has also consulted extensively

with EPA throughout the rulemaking process. The objective is that EPA

will be able to make a finding that NRC decommissioning criteria

provide adequate protection for the public and the environment and will

exclude NRC licensees from the EPA cleanup standards. In addition,

State and local governments will have opportunities to participate in

certain individual decommissioning actions carried out under the

proposed regulation. Further discussion on participation may be found

in item 7, below. Agreement State compatibility is discussed briefly in

a separate section near the end of this supplementary information.

6. Finality

Comment. Several commenters stated that the NRC's decommissioning

standard should be long-lasting and provide a final solution for

decommissioning sites that are contaminated with radioactive material.

The NRC's standard should be consistent with EPA rules to assure that a

site remediated under NRC's rules will not require further remediation

under EPA rules.

Some commenters questioned whether it is possible to have finality

in decommissioning standards because of likely new information and

improved technology in the future. They stated that sites should

continue to be remediated as necessary to meet new standards. Those

opposed stated that rules should be changed only if a substantial

increase in public safety can be demonstrated.

Response. The NRC staff believes that actions taken under the

criteria in this rule need not be revisited unless, based on new

information, there is reason to believe that residual radioactivity

remaining at the site could result in significant public risk.

Therefore, once a site has been decommissioned and the license

terminated in accordance with the criteria in the rule, the Commission

would require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it

determines the level of residual radioactivity at the site

substantially violates these criteria.

Based on the NRC's experience in the SDMP and other decommissioning

programs, it is important to provide a high level of assurance that

decommissioning actions conducted under the current criteria will not

need to be revisited in the future under potentially more restrictive

criteria. Licensees have indicated a genuine reluctance to commit the

large financial and corporate resources necessary for complex

decommissioning projects without these assurances. Uncertainty with

future criteria and the potential need for additional remediation

introduces havoc in the planning and conduct of effective

decommissioning. Without some degree of finality in the criteria,

licensees may be motivated to forestall decommissioning actions pending

development of more favorable criteria or less expensive

decommissioning technologies and waste disposal options. This approach

manifests itself in extended administrative appeals and litigation,

which often redirects licensee resources away from efforts to reduce

levels of contamination.

At the same time, the NRC recognizes that there may be legitimate

needs for additional remedial actions in the future if significant

additional contamination is discovered at a site or if the technical

basis on which the criteria are founded changes significantly,

indicating that potential future residents of the sites may be at

significantly greater risk than previously anticipated. Therefore, the

proposed criteria allow for additional remediation, if necessary, if

additional significant contamination is identified or if changes in the

risk or health basis for the criteria indicate the remediation is

necessary to protect the public against significant radiological risks.

As noted in item 5, the EPA and NRC are working together closely in

this rulemaking. Upon completion, the EPA will determine through a

formal notice and comment rulemaking whether the NRC's rule provides

adequate protection for public health and the environment. This should

minimize the risk that in the future the EPA would require additional

cleanup of a site which has been decommissioned in accordance with the

criteria in this rule.

7. Community Involvement

Comment. Many commenters recommended that the rulemaking should

provide for and ensure local citizen group participation in overseeing

the decommissioning of contaminated sites and the enforcement of

requirements. Also, the role of tribal authorities should be addressed.

Some commenters stated that the NRC should ensure citizen participation

in decommissioning from the earliest stage of cleanup.

Response. The NRC staff believes it is important for the public to

not only be fully informed of the decommissioning actions at a

particular site but also to be able to effectively participate in site

decommissioning decisions. The proposed rule provides specific

mechanisms for public participation in the decommissioning process,

where participation is important to ensuring that the public is

adequately informed about proposed decommissioning activities or that

the public and environment are adequately protected in conjunction with

reliance on institutional controls to restrict site access after

license termination. These activities are in addition to whatever

hearing opportunities are provided for a particular category of site by

the Commission's existing requirements.

Upon the receipt of a decommissioning plan from the licensee, or a

proposal by the licensee for restricted release of a site, or whenever

the Commission deems such a notice to be in the public interest, the

Commission will:

(1) Notify local and State governments in the vicinity of the site

and Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have treaty or

statutory rights that could be affected by the decommissioning;

(2) Publish a notice in the Federal Register as well as in other

media, such as local newspapers, which are readily accessible to

individuals in the vicinity of the site; and

(3) Solicit public comment on the proposed decommissioning action.

For decommissioning actions where the licensee proposes to request

license termination with land use restrictions, the licensee will be

required to convene a Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) for the

purpose of obtaining advice from affected parties regarding the

proposed decommissioning. The SSAB will function at the planning stages

of decommissioning, at the time the licensee is developing the

decommissioning plan for the facility. The purpose of the SSAB is to

provide recommendations to the licensee on:

(1) Whether there are ways to reduce residual radioactivity to the

levels that will permit release for unrestricted use which are

technically achievable, will not be prohibitively expensive, and will

not result in net public or environmental harm;

(2) Whether provisions for institutional controls proposed by the

licensee will:

(a) Provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE from residual

radioactivity distinguishable from background to the average member of

the Critical Group will not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE per year,

(b) Be enforceable,

(c) Impose undue burdens on the local community or other affected

parties; and

(3) Whether the licensee has provided sufficient financial

assurance to enable an independent third party to assume and carry out

responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of the site.

The licensee will be responsible for establishing the SSAB and

developing appropriate ground rules and operating procedures with the

SSAB's advice.

SSAB membership, to the extent that representatives are willing to

participate, will have to:

(1) Reflect the full range of interests in the affected community

and region and be composed of individuals who could be directly

affected by residual radioactivity at the decommissioned site, and

(2) Include representatives from the licensee; local and State

governments; workers; persons residing in the vicinity of the site;

citizen, environmental, environmental justice, and other public

interest groups; and Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have

treaty or statutory rights that could be affected.

SSAB meetings will be open to the public. The licensee will be

required to provide adequate public notice of the location, time, date,

and agenda for the meetings at least two weeks in advance of each

meeting. All records generated or reviewed by the SSAB will become part

of the decommissioning docket and be available for public inspection.

8. Stability and Flexibility

Comment. Several commenters stated that NRC decommissioning

standards are needed to facilitate long-term planning by the nuclear

industry and to provide stability against constantly changing criteria

over the years. Some commenters stated that even generic standards may

not be completely stable because they will need to be changed as a

result of newly perceived health effects and improvements in

technology.

Many commenters indicated that the rule must be flexible enough to

accommodate site differences, e.g., types of radionuclides present, the

geology and environmental surroundings, individuals who may be exposed,

and possible exposure patterns.

Most commenters favored a generic standard over site-specific

standards. While supporting the establishment of a generic standard,

some urged the NRC to permit site-specific considerations and site-

specific modeling for licensees to demonstrate compliance and to ensure

participation by local communities. One commenter stated it would be a

mistake to use a generic ALARA evaluation for all sites. Several

commenters recommended site-specific ALARA assessments. Some

commenters, particularly in the GEIS scoping meetings, suggested that

the rule only provide the process for establishing site-specific

criteria.

Response. The staff agrees that there is a need for consistent and

stable radiological criteria for the decommissioning of licensed

nuclear facilities throughout the United States. Therefore, this

rulemaking would establish a single set of radiological criteria that

would apply to the decommissioning of all sites. However, the staff

also recognizes the need for flexibility in applying these criteria

because of constraints posed by site specific conditions (e.g. geology,

hydrology, meteorology, and radiation background levels) and to provide

opportunity for meaningful participation by local communities in

individual decommissioning actions. Therefore, the rule proposed by the

staff provides for site-specific implementation of the generic

criteria. The Commission would also publish regulatory guidance along

with the rule that describes methods for site-specific implementation

of the criteria. This guidance includes conduct of site

characterization and surveys, specific radionuclide concentration and

surface activities that would be considered by the NRC staff to meet

the decommissioning limit, and modeling acceptable to the NRC staff to

develop more site-specific values of concentration or surface activity

based upon the factors unique to the activity being decommissioned. In

this regard, the NRC is working with the EPA and the DOE to develop a

Federal Government manual for the conduct of surveys to determine

compliance with decommissioning criteria. When completed, this effort

will assist in the consistent treatment of all sites requiring

remediation.

The NRC staff believes that generic criteria should be established

for decommissioning and that codifying radiological criteria for

decommissioning in the regulations would:

(1) Allow the NRC to more effectively assure protection of public

health and the environment at decommissioned sites;

(2) Result in more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources;

(3) Lead to more consistent and uniform application across all

types of licenses;

(4) Provide a more stable basis for decommissioning planning; and

(5) Eliminate protracted delays in decommissioning that result as

licensees wait for generic regulatory criteria before proceeding with

decommissioning of their facilities.

The NRC does not favor the option suggested of providing a process

based rule whereby the criteria codified would only be for the process

to be used in establishing site-specific radiological criteria. This

approach would be essentially the same as the option of remaining with

the current status quo. In general, a site-specific approach can lead

to considerable delays and increased uncertainty on the part of all

parties associated with the decommissioning. Further, this approach

would be inappropriate and burdensome for the large number of licensees

using sealed sources or radionuclides with relatively short half-lives.

9. ALARA Considerations

Comment. Under the ALARA concept, decommissioning activities are

continued beyond meeting applicable risk/dose limits in efforts to

reduce radiation exposures As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).

Most commenters recommended that the NRC's radiological criteria should

incorporate this principle. Several commenters stated that State and

local governments should be involved in ALARA determinations. However,

other commenters expressed distrust of the licensees' and regulatory

agencies' application of the ALARA process because it involves

financial tradeoffs and licensees are motivated to maximize their

profits.

Response. The proposed rule requires application of the ALARA

concept, provided that potential doses are constrained within limiting

doses under a range of conditions. NRC anticipates that many licensees,

particularly sealed source users or those who use relatively short-

lived radioactive materials, will be able to satisfy the ALARA criteria

with an analysis of projected dose levels. In these cases, extensive

additional documentation to support an ALARA determination would not be

required. State and local governments and other affected parties will

be involved in ALARA determinations through opportunities to comment on

decommissioning proposals and participation on the Site-Specific

Advisory Board in those cases where the licensee is seeking license

termination under restricted conditions. This level of involvement

provides for transparent application of the ALARA considerations and

safeguards against excessive licensee attention to cutting costs to

maintain profit margins.

Comment. Many commenters stated that for the most effective use of

resources and fairness, the NRC must consider in the risk-benefit

balance not only radiological risks to workers and the public but,

also, non-radiological risks and indirect risks associated with the

regulation of decommissioning activities.

Response. The staff agrees that all significant public and

environmental risks should be considered. The GEIS for this rulemaking

assesses both radiological and non-radiological impacts for the

proposed rule and several alternative actions, including the

alternative of no remedial action. In addition, the proposed rule would

require that the licensee, when determining ALARA for a specific

decommissioning, consider all significant radiological and non-

radiological risks resulting from residual radioactivity and from the

decommissioning process itself (including transportation and disposal

of radioactive wastes generated in the process).

In some cases, the necessary ALARA analysis will go beyond the

relatively simple cost-benefit analysis that has typically been applied

in the nuclear industry in limiting worker exposures because the types

of risks being considered are not things that can be easily quantified

or compared. For example, transportation poses immediate risks in terms

of fatalities due to highway accidents in hauling the radioactive

contamination to appropriate disposal sites. Some individuals and

organizations have suggested that these anticipated fatalities should

not be considered as having the same seriousness or likelihood as the

potential deaths at some point in the future of individuals that may

inhabit former nuclear sites after license termination. ALARA, or

perceptions of what should be considered as ALARA, may also vary

because of values placed on minimizing the number of new disposal

sites, preserving existing resources, or preserving viable industries

for jobs. Each of these factors were discussed in the workshops, and

the staff believes that these same factors may need to be considered in

determining the ALARA level for remediation at a particular site. The

NRC is developing guidance on how the ALARA process could be applied in

evaluating alternative radiological criteria for decommissioning on a

site-specific basis.

Comment. Another commenter stated that, ``there is no ecological or

conservation basis for establishing radiation protection standards

different from those * * * involved in any other health issue for which

benefits are weighed against costs.''

Response. The NRC staff agrees with this stated conclusion that, as

a guiding principle, radiation protection standards do not warrant

different treatment than those for other health issues. In this regard,

the staff has carefully considered both the criteria and the

implementation of those criteria in other environmental remediation

programs (e.g., the EPA Superfund program). The staff believes the

criteria proposed in this rulemaking are generally consistent with

those used in other environmental remediation programs.

Comment. Several commenters stated that cleaning up to any

specified level is technically achievable and is simply a matter of how

much it will cost. Some believed that decommissioning costs to return

sites to unrestricted use could be so high that the sites should be

kept under continued control and maintained as a restricted area. Some

commenters suggested that money saved on unnecessary decommissioning

activities might be used in other activities more beneficial to the

public. Other commenters stated that money saved on decommissioning

costs would not necessarily be available for societal betterment.

Response. The proposed rule recognizes that it may not be

reasonable to remediate some sites to a level that permits release for

unrestricted use. The costs involved, either in dollars or in potential

harm to the environment or people, may be prohibitive. In these cases,

the proposed rule provides for termination of the license under

restricted conditions. The staff is also aware that in some unusual

cases sites may have to remain under license indefinitely. For example,

the NRC is aware of certain sites that are so contaminated by elevated

levels of the naturally occurring radionuclides uranium, thorium, and

their decay products that it would be extremely difficult and costly to

satisfy the proposed criteria for unrestricted or restricted release.

In these cases, the staff anticipates that the sites would have to

remain under a license indefinitely until new, more efficient

technologies are developed or the financial resources become available

to pay for more complete remediation. The Commission has no authority

over expenditure of funds that might be saved by avoiding what were

termed ``unnecessary decommissioning activities.''

10. Site Remediation

Comment. Several commenters stated that, although the cost of

decommissioning could be high, remediation technologies are available

for achieving whatever level is set by the NRC. The NRC should describe

acceptable methodologies for remediation and measurement to reduce

subjective judgments and should ensure that workers who perform

remediation are appropriately trained and protected.

Response. Before the effective date of the final rule, the NRC will

provide interim guidance for use and comment on acceptable

methodologies for demonstrating compliance with the Commission's

residual radioactivity criteria. After one to two years' implementation

experience is gained from use of the interim guidance, the collected

comments will be addressed and the final guidance will be issued.

However, the NRC staff does not believe that it would be appropriate to

prescribe, a priori, the methods to be used. Licensees must be able to

take advantage of whatever safe methodologies may be available for

achieving remediation that complies with the criteria for

decommissioning.

Workers performing decommissioning must receive training in

radiation protection according to the requirements of the Commission's

requirements in 10 CFR 19.12, ``Instructions to Workers.'' Likewise,

workers participating in decommissioning activities will be subject to

all of the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20, including requirements related

to personnel monitoring, respiratory protection, occupational dose

limits, and ALARA. In this regard, the staff does not view the conduct

of decommissioning activities to be any different from other

operational activities licensed by the Commission.

11. Demonstrating Compliance

Comment. Several commenters stated that demonstration of compliance

with NRC decommissioning rules and applicable radiological limits is a

major issue. The commenters believe the NRC must provide clear

guidelines with respect to the kinds of measurements that are necessary

and the models that are acceptable to demonstrate compliance. With

respect to measurements, guidance should cover:

(1) Acceptable measurement methods;

(2) Extent of measurements needed;

(3) Use of field instruments versus laboratory instruments;

(4) Statistical sampling; and

(5) Calibration standards and measurement certification.

With respect to models and methodologies, guidance should be

provided on their use, uncertainties, and how to apply site-specific

characteristics. The NRC must make sufficient confirmatory

measurements to check that the standards have been met and NRC

should enforce the standards.

Several commenters pointed out that, whatever risk standard the NRC

may adopt, compliance will likely need to be determined by a computer

model except for small operations when contamination levels are within

specified generic criteria. Other commenters stated that

decontamination limits should be established and dose modeling should

not be relied on to demonstrate compliance. Comments were split on

whether risk limits might be needed for different exposure pathways.

Response. Before the effective date of the final rule, NRC plans to

issue specific guidance that includes conservative radiation levels,

surface contamination limits, and radioactivity concentrations for use

by licensees who elect to apply a generic model to demonstrate

compliance. Guidance on measurements covering the above listed five

subjects will also be provided. The NRC appreciates that guidance is

essential especially where the licensee must demonstrate compliance

with criteria that require reduction of residual radioactivity to near

background levels. The NRC expects to make sufficient confirmatory

measurements to ensure compliance with the criteria.

The proposed rule limits the total exposure from all pathways and,

except for the purpose of groundwater protection, does not set limits

for individual pathways. The groundwater protection requirement has

been included at the request of the EPA to ensure conformance with EPA

groundwater protection requirements. Because exposure pathways vary in

importance to public dose depending on the radioisotope involved, site-

specific parameters, and the circumstances under which the site might

be used after decommissioning, the staff believes that, as a general

rule, no useful purpose would be served by placing limits on individual

pathways. In the selection of conservative default values for use by

licensees who do not wish to utilize site-specific modeling, the most

critical pathways and scenarios of exposure are assumed to be dominant.

The absence of limits on individual pathways provides the licensee with

more flexibility in limiting radiation exposures while at the same time

providing adequate overall public protection.

12. Sites Which Cannot Be Released for Unrestricted Use

Comment. Many commenters stated that the NRC should establish

standards for both unrestricted and restricted release of sites while

others recommended that the NRC require all sites to be remediated

suitably for unrestricted use. Some commenters stated that sites should

continue to be licensed by the NRC if they cannot be reasonably

decontaminated. Also, commenters stated that the NRC should consider

the option of restricted future use of decommissioned facilities only

after a rigorous public participation process. Many commenters stated

that unrestricted release should be the goal, but that realistically,

some sites cannot be remediated suitably for unrestricted release.

Response. The proposed rule provides for both unrestricted release

and restricted termination of the license under prescribed conditions.

The requirement that the licensee convene a Site-Specific Advisory

Board early in the development of proposed decommissioning plans should

help ensure substantive public participation in decisions concerning

possible restricted termination of the license. As previously

discussed, the staff is aware of sites, such as sites with significant

volumes of thorium contamination, that will require extensively

remedial efforts to achieve the proposed requirements for restricted or

unrestricted release. If these sites cannot be remediated to achieve at

least the restricted release criteria, then the site license will

remain in effect indefinitely until technology or resources become

available to achieve compliance with the criteria. In the interim

period, NRC will ensure appropriate control of the licensed site on a

site-specific basis, including access restrictions, environmental

monitoring, personnel monitoring, posting, mitigative actions, and

other measures directed at ensuring the stability of the radioactive

material and protection of the public health and the environment.

13. Waste Disposal

Comment. Several commenters questioned whether there is enough

space at a regional disposal facility for the voluminous soils and

other materials that are expected from decommissioned sites. Other

commenters stated that irrespective of where or how wastes are

disposed, the costs of nuclear waste management will be high. Some

commenters suggested that the option of leaving radioactive wastes on-

site should be considered as a temporary or intermediate option to

permit decay of radioactive wastes and allow time for resolving long-

term waste disposal problems.

Response. The NRC staff recognizes that decommissioning to

radiation levels approaching background may produce large volumes of

low-level waste which could affect the availability of regional

disposal capacity. However, the proposed rule would require the

licensee to consider significant radiation doses and risks resulting

from transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes generated in the

decommissioning process when determining ALARA for a specific

decommissioning action. If disposal capacity were to become temporarily

limited, on-site storage and containment of wastes may be necessary

until a disposal site becomes available. However, any temporary onsite

storage and containment of radioactive wastes be done under the

provisions of an existing NRC license, and the site would not be

decommissioned until this waste had been removed from the site. The

radiological and non-radiological impacts associated with disposal of

the types of radioactive waste generated in decommissioning were

considered in NRC's development of the Environmental Impact Statement

in support of the low-level waste disposal requirements in 10 CFR Part

61. Impacts associated with extended storage of waste onsite or at a

centralized storage facility would typically be considered as part of

environmental analysis in support of issuing or renewing facility

licenses or of approving decommissioning actions at a licensed

facility.

14. Minimizing Generation of Waste

Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC discourage or

stop licensing nuclear operations that generate nuclear wastes. Several

commenters stated that environmental organizations would be willing to

talk about ways to decommission nuclear operations and to dispose of

radioactive materials only if power plants were no longer permitted to

operate. Other commenters supported the continuation of nuclear power.

One commenter urged the NRC not to take sides for or against nuclear

power and stated that the policy debate on the relative merits of

various power-generating options should be held in another forum (e.g.,

Congress). Some commenters observed that high costs of decommissioning

and waste disposal could help to minimize waste generation. Some

commenters recommended that the rulemaking should deal with source

reduction of nuclear wastes. Some commenters suggested that

decommissioning proposals should be submitted and approved at the

design stage and, consequently, newer facilities should be easier to

decommission.

Response. The NRC agrees that newly licensed facilities should be

encouraged in designing and operating nuclear facilities to minimize

the generation of radioactive waste and facility contamination. The

proposed rule would require applicants for licenses, other than

renewals, after the effective date of the rule to describe in the

application how facility design and procedures for operation will

minimize contamination of the facility and the environment, facilitate

eventual decommissioning, and minimize the generation of radioactive

waste.

15. Radon

Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC should impose

limits to control exposure from radon emissions at decommissioned sites

because radon exposures could be a significant health problem.

Commenters in favor of NRC setting a radon standard stated it should be

possible to make a good estimate of how much radon comes from licensed

material. Commenters not supporting the NRC's setting a radon standard

stated that the need to deal with radon at licensed sites should be

considered site-to-site and that radon control should be left to local

zoning boards and housing authorities.

Response. The NRC staff believes that it is not possible to measure

or distinguish concentrations of radon which will produce radiation

doses of a few mrem TEDE/y above background using current technology.

This belief is based on:

(1) Recognition of the ubiquitous nature of radon in the general

environment;

(2) Large uncertainties in the models used to project radon

concentrations in indoor air based on soil concentrations of

precursors; and

(3) Limitations of existing measurement techniques in

distinguishing between elevated radon concentrations and radon

attributed to natural sources. Therefore, the staff does not propose to

establish a separate standard for radon. Instead, exposure to radon at

decommissioned sites would be controlled by requiring the licensee to

reduce the residual concentrations of radon precursors like uranium,

thorium, and radium to levels within the limit for unrestricted use

and, using the ALARA principle, toward levels which are

indistinguishable from background levels.

16. Environmental and Social Considerations

Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC develop standards

for protecting natural ecosystems in addition to standards protecting

humans. Others expressed concern for environmental protection without

recommending for or against establishing separate environmental

standards. A large number of commenters recommended that protection of

human health is sufficient to protect any known ecological system.

Therefore, only a standard for protecting humans is needed. Commenters

stated that this is the view of the International Commission on

Radiological Protection.

Many commenters recommended that case-by-case consideration should

be given for special environmental and social/cultural issues

associated with homeland, historical sites, and Native American lands

because they contain religious sites and sacred areas.

Several commenters cautioned against establishment of unnecessarily

restrictive decommissioning standards that could cause severe

environmental damage trying to clean up soil and vegetation to

background levels because these actions could totally change a site's

ecology.

Response. The NRC considered the possible need for radiation

standards specifically designed to protect the environment. This

analysis is reflected in the draft GEIS. Based on this analysis, the

staff concludes that the radiological criteria in the proposed rule

which are designed to protect public health should also provide

adequate environmental protection.

However, the NRC staff recognizes there may be environmental or

cultural issues associated with a particular decommissioning action

which require special consideration. These issues can best be handled

on a site-by-site basis as part on the decommissioning plan review

process and as part of the Commission's environmental review under the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Where necessary, opportunity

for public comment and use of the Site-Specific Advisory Board will

provide a mechanism for local citizens and other affected parties to be

directly involved in addressing these issues.

17. Recycle

Comment. Comments were offered for and against whether NRC should

permit recycling of contaminated materials. Those in favor recommended

recycling to save resources. Those opposed recommended against

recycling to limit public risk. Other commenters stated that the

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recommended that the

maximum dose to any individual from recycled material not exceed one

millirem per year.

Response. Although the proposed rule does not specifically address

recycle, the NRC staff believes the radiological criteria in the

proposed rule provide reasonable assurance that future inadvertent

recycle of soils or structures following decommissioning of a site will

not adversely affect public health. The analysis which supports the

rule, although it does not specifically take recycle into account, is

based on prudently conservative scenarios which tend to overestimate

expected public doses.

In cases where the licensee achieves residual radioactivity levels

that are indistinguishable from background, the potential doses from

inadvertent recycle are expected to be insignificant. In cases where

the residual radioactivity cannot be reduced to the point that it is

indistinguishable from background, the licensee will have to consider

inadvertent recycle when conducting the ALARA analysis for the site.

Therefore, steps can be taken on a site-specific basis to impose

additional restrictions if inadvertent recycle appears to pose a

significant potential problem at that site.

The Commission plans to consider separately the issues of how to

deal with cases where the licensee proposes to release material

containing residual radioactivity intentionally for reuse or recycle

either as a part of decommissioning or ongoing operations. In the

interim the Commission will continue to be review these actions on a

case-by-case basis.

Comments on the NRC Staff Draft

Overview of Comments

There were 1685 comments from the 89 docketed letters received on

the NRC staff draft. These comments were similar to those from the

workshops with respect to the wide range of expressed views. Two

subjects on which the commenters were in general agreement were (1) the

appropriateness of the rulemaking process, and (2) the significance of

not having the GEIS and the guidance documents available for review.

The commenters strongly favor the enhanced participatory rulemaking

process but said that the GEIS and the guidance documents are needed in

order to understand the basis for the rule and how it would be

implemented. The NRC staff considered these comments in the development

of the proposed rule.

Summary and Discussion of Comments

1. Need for and Scope of Rule

Comment. Commenters supported the NRC's efforts to develop

radiological decommissioning standards. However, some questioned

whether the NRC should defer to the EPA and suggested that the NRC

await the EPA's efforts to develop these standards. Several commenters

urged that the NRC reconsider and delete the exclusion of previously

approved decommissioning plans from the new requirements. Others

recommended retention of this exclusion and its expansion to cover

decommissioning plans already in the final stages of NRC review and

approval. A comment reported often was that the NRC should issue its

proposed radiological criteria for final public review and comment only

after the NRC has completed and issued the companion GEIS and other

guidance documents needed to facilitate understanding of the proposed

rulemaking.

Response. With respect to the question of whether the NRC should

let the EPA take the lead in developing radiological decommissioning

standards, the NRC will have to proceed with rulemaking in any case. If

EPA develops standards, the NRC will have to promulgate a regulation to

implement the EPA standard. Therefore, it was jointly decided that

parallel NRC/EPA efforts would be the best approach. The NRC has worked

closely with the EPA and will continue to do so. As a result of this

interactive cooperation, progress has been made that would have been

unlikely otherwise. It is believed important that both agencies

continue to work on this effort (see discussion under Item 4,

Consistency and Compatibility). With respect to previously approved

decommissioning plans, the Commission believes it is important to

encourage licensees to take timely decommissioning actions.

Accordingly, the Commission is retaining the exclusion of previously

approved decommissioning plans in the new requirements and is expanding

the provisions to include plans under final stages of NRC review.

Regarding the need for public review of the GEIS and other guidance

documents, the Commission fully agrees. The GEIS, a regulatory analysis

(RA), and an NRC staff working draft regulatory guide will be issued

concurrently with publication of the proposed rulemaking. The formal

comment period for the rulemaking will commence with this Federal

Register Notice. Further opportunity for enhanced public participation

and comment will be provided in a workshop to be held during the latter

part of the formal comment period for the proposed rule and the NRC

staff draft regulatory guide. Notification of the workshop will be

placed in the Federal Register and posted on the electronic board.

2. Radiological Criteria

Comment. Comments were divided concerning whether NRC

decommissioning standards should be based on the recommendations of

recognized national and international bodies such as the ICRP and NCRP.

Many citizen/environmental organizations continued to recommend that

the NRC should require decontaminating to a level indistinguishable

from background. They opposed setting any acceptable risk level or

radiation dose for decommissioning because they believe that any

incremental increase over background dose is unacceptable. Most

industry and other commenters recommended that the decommissioning

standard be based on technically supportable risk/dose criteria. Some

commenters urged that the proposed level be decided only after

analyzing the costs and benefits of alternative proposals.

Many commenters objected to inclusion of a quantitative goal in the

rulemaking because it could be interpreted by some as the standard that

should be achieved in most cases. Other commenters agreed on inclusion

of both a quantitative goal and a quantitative limit. Some want these

to be lower than the levels specified--TEDEs of 3 mrem and 15 mrem per

year. Many citizen/environmental organization commenters stated that,

instead of specifying a numerical goal and a limit, the regulatory

objective should be to reduce contamination to a level that is not

distinguishable from background. Other commenters stated that doses in

the range of 3 mrem to 15 mrem per year are indistinguishable from

background. Most of these commenters recommended that the dose limit

should be increased to a level between 25 and 100 mrem per year, or

possibly higher. Reasons for recommending a higher dose limit included

(1) the criteria should conform to recommendations of national and

international scientific consensus organizations; (2) a cost-benefit

analysis would support a higher limit; (3) the criteria should be based

on scientific analyses and not based on intuitive feelings; (4) there

are no practical means to demonstrate compliance with TEDEs of 3 and 15

mrem per year; and (5) efforts to comply with such levels would waste

large resources in remediating small risks with no real gain in

benefits.

Several commenters recommended that the goal be dropped from the

rule. Some of these commenters suggested the goal instead be

incorporated into the guidance that would accompany the rule. A

principal concern was that the goal would become a de facto limit. In

particular, the EPA, in presenting their comments on the goal,

indicated concern over the perception that the specification of any

value, such as 3 mrem/yr, would be construed as the actual requirement

for the decommissioning. The EPA has verbally continued to express

concerns regarding the NRC staff proposal of presenting acceptable

staff positions for ALARA documentation in the Regulatory Guide.

Some commenters requested that, because of possible failure of

institutional controls, the NRC should not place a dose restriction of

100 mrem per year on sites subject to restricted release. Commenters

were divided on the requirement that licensees base their estimates of

greatest TEDE dose on the first 1000 years. Some stated that this time

is unrealistically long while others stated that it is unrealistically

short.

Several commenters compared the proposed limits of 15 mrem/y and 3

mrem/y to risk limits/goals attributed to the EPA and suggested that

these comparisons are complicated by differences in scenarios for

exposure used by the EPA and the NRC, and by a basic difference between

a limit and a goal. A limit must always be reached. A goal is not

always reached.

Commenters requested that the NRC include alternative radiological

criteria for licensees who possess radioactive materials of a kind and

form not requiring extensive decontamination at the time of

decommissioning. They suggested that demonstration of compliance should

be possible through direct radiation measurements and not require the

use of modeling and consultants.

Response. The following responses are provided.

a. Appropriateness of 15 mrem/y TEDE.

The Commission has considered the comments in light of information

presented in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and the

Regulatory Analysis (RA). These studies show that residual

radioactivity can be reduced to levels which will result in an annual

TEDE of 15 mrem without unreasonable effort or expense for most

radionuclides and most facilities. A summary of this analysis can be

found in Sections 5 through 7 of the GEIS and Sections 4 and 6 of the

RA. In those few cases where reducing the residual radioactivity to the

levels required to comply with the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit for

unrestricted use are either not technically achievable, would be

prohibitively expensive, or would result in net public or environmental

harm, Sec. 20.1405 of the proposed rule provides the licensee with the

option of requesting release of the site with restrictions placed on

its use.

Several commenters have argued that a 15 mrem/y limit for

unrestricted release is not consistent with the recommendations of the

ICRP and NCRP and that the limit should be raised to as high as 100

mrem/y. The Commission believes that an additional margin of safety

below 100 mrem/yr is necessary because the 100 mrem/y limit is intended

to apply to doses to the public resulting from all radiation sources

(NCRP Report No. 116, Section 15; ICRP Publication 60, Section 5.5).

Therefore, allocation of the entire 100 mrem/y dose to residual

radioactivity from the decommissioning of a single facility would be

inappropriate. Using a safety margin to limit the dose from a single

source to avoid a summation of exposures approaching the dose limit is

consistent with the recommendations of both the ICRP and the NCRP.

b. Removal of Goal from the NRC staff Draft Rule.

As formulated in the NRC staff draft rule, the goal was designed to

serve two principal objectives. First, and foremost, it would clearly

articulate the NRC's objective for decommissioned sites. Second, it

would establish a dose level well below the limit at which licensees

who have little or no site contamination (e.g., licensees that use only

sealed sources or short lived radioisotopes) would be relieved of much

of the burden of analysis associated with the ALARA requirement.

The NRC staff has reexamined the goal concept based on the comments

received, and has concluded that having both a limit and a goal in the

rule can lead to confusion concerning the Commission's intent.

Therefore, in order to clarify the Commission's intent and to make it

clear that 15 mrem/y TEDE is the only limit, the Commission has dropped

the term ``goal'' from the rule. Instead the Commission has substituted

the following:

First, in order to clearly articulate the Commission's continued

commitment to the objective for decommissioned sites, the following

statement of objective has been included in Sec. 20.1402 of the

proposed rule:

The objective of decommissioning is to reduce the residual

radioactivity in structures, materials, soils, groundwater, and

other media at the site so that the concentration of each

radionuclide that could contribute to residual radioactivity is

indistinguishable from the background radiation concentration for

that radionuclide. The Commission realizes that, as a practical

matter, it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that such an

objective has been met. Therefore, the Commission has established a

site release limit and is requiring that licensees demonstrate that

the residual radioactivity at a site is as far below this limit as

reasonably achievable.

Second, in order to provide administrative relief to licensees who

have little or no site contamination, the Commission has revised

Sec. 20.1404 of the rule to read as follows:

A site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if:

(a) the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from

background radiation results in a TEDE to the average member of the

critical group that does not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) per year; and

(b) the residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are

as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

Depending on the site-specific ALARA analysis, any dose level less

than or equal to 15 mrem/y may be considered ALARA. However, in many

situations, licensees who have little or no site contamination should

be able to readily achieve a dose level well below the limit. The NRC

will provide guidance as to how such licensees can demonstrate

compliance with Section 20.1404(b) without having to perform

sophisticated analyses to demonstrate that residual radioactivity

levels at their sites are ALARA. This should substantially reduce the

administrative burden on licensees who have little or no site

contamination (e.g., licensees that use only sealed sources or short

lived radioisotopes). There are approximately 17,000 NRC and Agreement

State licensees, many of which are small businesses, that are expected

to benefit from this guidance without any compromise to public health

and safety.

c. Time Frame.

For the reasons stated in the rationale for the proposed rule, the

Commission believes the 1000 year time frame proposed by the NRC staff

is reasonable for estimating annual doses from residual radioactivity

from decommissioned sites.

When predicting thousands of years into the future, uncertainties

become very large because of major potential changes in the

hydrogeologic regime at the site over these long periods of time. When

the potential consequences of exposure to the radioactive source are

great; e.g., as in the case of a high level waste repository, distant

future calculations may provide some insight concerning the relative

magnitude of consequences. However, the consequences of exposure to

residual radioactivity at levels near background are small and

considering the large uncertainties, long term modeling of near

background doses may be virtually meaningless. Thus, the Commission

does not believe it would serve any useful purpose to attempt to

estimate radiation doses from residual radioactivity thousands of years

into the future.

3. Individual vs Collective Doses

Comment. Several commenters stated that collective dose should be

used by the NRC to evaluate costs and benefits of alternative

radiological criteria. The Department of Energy suggested that an ALARA

analysis, based on collective dose and competing risks for certain

sites with low population exposure, might indicate that the criteria

proposed by the NRC may not be justifiable. Most commenters favored

using dose to individuals to ensure protection of the public health.

Many citizen/environmental groups disagreed with the proposal to limit

individual dose to the ``average member of the Critical Group.'' They

recommended that the goal and limit as described in the staff's draft

rule be applied to the maximally exposed individual in the exposure

group.

Response. The Commission agrees with the commenters that collective

dose should be used by the NRC to evaluate the costs and benefits of

alternative radiological criteria. In fact, this has been incorporated

in the assessment of the total risk for the respective alternatives in

the GEIS and the RA. Although these documents were unavailable for

review by the commenters, the technical analyses in the GEIS and the RA

support the criteria in the proposed rule.

The Commission considers the use of TEDE to the average member of

the Critical Group to be a more useful concept for the purposes of

decommissioning for the reasons discussed in the Rationale for the

Proposed Rule. The discussion of ``Critical Group'' in the Rationale

has been revised to make it clear that the critical group must be

reasonably homogeneous. This clarifies that the licensee cannot average

doses over a group whose members may be expected to get widely

differing doses for the purpose of ``averaging down'' expected doses to

highly exposed individuals.

4. Consistency and Compatibility

Comment. As was the case at the earlier workshops, commenters urged

that the NRC and the EPA work together to develop consistent standards.

Conservation of Federal resources and avoidance of imposing different

standards on regulated parties were considered to be important.

However, the NRC was advised not to lower its risk limit simply to

accommodate the EPA.

The commenters recommended that the degree of consistency that the

NRC will require between NRC standards and Agreement State standards be

clearly stated. One commenter suggested that the Federal standard be

set to ensure adequate protection of the public and that if a State or

local community requires a licensee to decommission to a lower standard

that does not provide a significant benefit, then the State or local

community should fund this extra effort. Agreement State commenters

requested that the statement of considerations for the proposed

rulemaking discuss the extent to which they must implement specific

provisions of the rule to maintain continued regulatory compatibility

with NRC regulations.

Response. In response to the comments concerning the relationship

between NRC and EPA standards, NRC and EPA are developing

decommissioning criteria in parallel rulemaking efforts. The NRC and

EPA are coordinating their efforts in this area to ensure that

effective and consistent site decommissioning standards are

established, while minimizing duplication of effort. Accordingly, the

EPA was an important participant in the NRC rulemaking workshops and is

a cooperating agency in the preparation of the GEIS for the rulemaking.

The NRC has also consulted extensively with EPA throughout the

rulemaking process. The objective is that EPA will be able to make a

finding that NRC decommissioning criteria provide adequate protection

for the public and the environment and will exclude NRC licensees from

the EPA cleanup standards.

In response to the question of NRC/Agreement State compatibility,

the Commission is developing a new policy on Agreement State

compatibility which will be issued for public comment in the near

future. Because the compatibility determination for this proposed rule

will be considered in light of the new compatibility policy, the

Commission believes it would be premature to propose a compatibility

determination at this time. However, to facilitate ultimate resolution

of the compatibility determination for this rule, if adopted as a final

rule, the Commission is requesting comments on whether, to what extent,

and under what circumstances, an Agreement State should be authorized

to establish more stringent requirements than those set forth in this

proposed rule.

5. Finality

Comment. Finality of decommissioning was a major issue among

commenters. Various commenters stated (1) that revisiting sites should

be based on new site-specific information and not on new evaluation

methods and (2) that the criteria for revisiting sites are too

subjective and require clarification or refinement.

Response. The Commission agrees that the wording in the NRC staff

draft was ambiguous. Therefore, Sec. 20.1401(c) has been revised to

make it clear that the Commission would require additional cleanup only

if, based on new information, it determined that residual radioactivity

remaining at the site could result in significant public risk.

6. Community Involvement

Comment. The NRC staff draft specified that the Commission will

inform the public of each receipt of a decommissioning plan from a

licensee and of each proposal for restricted release of a site. In

addition, it specified that licensees who propose to release sites

under stipulated conditions of restricted release must convene a Site-

Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) for purpose of providing advice to the

licensee.

Several industry commenters questioned the need for these

additional requirements on the grounds that:

(1) Present procedures for public participation in licensing

procedures are adequate and provide an appropriate way to deal with the

concerns of those affected by decommissioning;

(2) There is no demonstrated need; and

(3) The provisions of SSABs would put managerial, regulatory, and

financial matters of licensees in the hands of people who have no

responsibility for the consequences of their recommendations.

Most other commenters supported the proposed new community

involvement proposals and some commenters additionally urged the NRC to

require establishment of an SSAB for all decommissioning cases,

including sites suitable for unrestricted release. Others recommended

that an SSAB should be used in cases involving Native American lands,

sites surrounded by high density residential uses, ocean or waterfront

sites, or sensitive ecosystems unless the three (3) millirem per year

decommissioning goal would be met.

Additional comments on the use of SSABs included:

(1) The rulemaking should delimit SSAB roles and responsibilities;

(2) Guidelines are needed with respect to SSAB staffing and

activities;

(3) SSABs should not report to licensees or be funded by licensees

because this could compromise their effective use;

(4) Membership should be restricted to ``citizen, environmental,

environmental justice, and other public interest groups'' who reside in

the local community; and

(5) The membership should include a representative of the site to

which wastes are expected to be sent.

Response. With respect to the need for additional community

involvement, the Commission believes that the noticing requirements and

the requirements to establish and use SSABs should be implemented as

proposed in the NRC staff draft. The proposed termination of licenses

and release of sites under conditions of restricted release involve

issues (e.g., land restrictions) which could have unanticipated adverse

effects on the local community. The Commission wants to be sure it has

considered the views of affected members of the local community on

these issues before making a decision on the licensee's request. These

proposed provisions will provide an effective means to inform the

affected licensees, local and state governments, and the NRC of these

views. However, the Commission believes that an extension of the SSAB

requirement to apply to cases involving unrestricted release is

unnecessary and would impose an undue burden with little or no public

benefit on a large number of licensees, many of which are small

businesses.

With respect to delimiting the role and responsibilities of SSABs

and providing guidance on SSAB staffing and activities, the Commission

specifically requests further comment on these issues. After gaining

experience with the formation and use of SSABs, it might be appropriate

to reconsider the need for this guidance at a later date. Regarding the

funding and control of SSABs, the Commission believes that licensees

should provide the necessary funding as proposed. The proposed rule

contains safeguards to ensure that the SSABs are not subject to

licensee control. The licensee would be required to provide reasonable

opportunity for all local affected parties to be represented on the

SSAB. Meetings of the SSAB must be open to the public. The licensee

must provide adequate public notice of the location, time, date, and

agenda for the meetings at least two weeks in advance of each meeting.

All records generated or reviewed by the SSAB become part of the

licensing docket and will be available for public inspection.

With respect to restriction of the SSAB membership to the local

community, the intent of the provisions in Sec. 20.1407(c) is such a

restriction. Regarding the proposal to expand memberships of the SSAB

to include a representative of the designated offsite disposal site,

the Commission believes that the offsite disposal site is not relevant

for consideration by the SSAB, because siting of the waste disposal

facility involves a separate public process that, in part, recognizes

that wastes will be transported to the waste facility.

7. Stability and Flexibility

Comment. Most of those who commented on stability or flexibility

provided in the draft rule said that a generic standard should be

written to provide enough flexibility to account for actual risks

associated with conditions peculiar to specific sites in protecting the

public and the environment, and to select appropriate site-specific

remediation methods. Some commenters said that the imposition of strict

generic standards without flexibility might not provide an optimum

protection strategy across the range of categories of licensees. Other

commenters noted that the adequacy of flexibility provided under the

draft proposed rule cannot be decided without the necessary guidance

documents.

Response. The Commission also recognizes the need for flexibility

in applying these criteria because of constraints posed by site-

specific conditions (e.g., geology, hydrology, meteorology, and

radiation background levels) and to provide opportunity for meaningful

participation by local communities in individual decommissioning

actions. Therefore, the proposed rule provides for site-specific

implementation of the generic criteria. The Commission is publishing

the NRC staff's working draft regulatory guidance along with the

proposed rule which describes methods for site-specific implementation

of the criteria. This working draft guidance includes conduct of site

characterization and surveys, specific radionuclide concentration and

surface activities that would be considered by the NRC staff to meet

the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit, and modeling acceptable to the staff to

develop more site-specific values of concentration or surface activity

based upon the factors unique to the activity being decommissioned.

8. ALARA Considerations

Comment. Comments on the ALARA concept were much the same as

provided at the earlier workshops. Most public/environmental

organization commenters stated that they do not trust licensees to make

ALARA determinations. Industry and other commenters stated that they

support the NRC's permitting them to make ALARA determinations and

urged the NRC to continue to permit licensees to use site specific

factors in making these determinations.

Response. The Commission believes that ALARA is a fundamental

concept of radiation protection and is an important part of its

decommissioning criteria. NRC guidance being issued in support of the

rulemaking provides for the use of site-specific factors in deciding

what levels should be achieved below the stipulated radiological limit.

This guidance will be described in NUREG-1500 ``Working Draft

Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for Decommissioning; Staff Draft

for Comment.''

9. Demonstrating Compliance

Comment. Many submitting written comments urged the NRC to complete

its guidance on acceptable methodologies criteria as soon as possible

and to publish this guidance for comment before the rulemaking is

issued for final public comment. Many commenters questioned the

technical ability to demonstrate compliance with the proposed dose

goals or limits in the staff's draft, or questioned the technical

justification for such requirements, or said that there are no

standards for demonstrations of compliance. Several others said that

demonstrating compliance to the proposed dose goals or limits is

impractical and will unnecessarily increase costs and volumes of low-

level wastes generated during decommissioning.

Many commenters said that there must be practical or objective

guidance for demonstrating compliance. Some said that this guidance

should be issued for review before the rule is promulgated. Some

commenters raised questions on who makes the final decisions on

demonstrating of compliance and by what means.

Some commenters suggested that simplified guidance (not requiring

the use of modeling or consultants) should be provided for designated

licensees who have only low levels of contamination or ``uncomplicated

situations'' in their operations. Some commenters said that the public

might more easily understand demonstration of compliance if alternative

limits to the ones proposed were used. Several commenters said that

compliance should be demonstrated by actual measurements and not just

by modeling. Some commenters also suggested specific methodologies for

demonstrating compliance.

Response. The capabilities for demonstrating compliance are

considered in the GEIS and the RA which provide the technical basis for

the radiological criteria in the rule. Guidance that is being issued

for public comment in conjunction with the publication of the proposed

rule will cover acceptable methods for demonstrating compliance, the

use of simplified methods or practical derived measurements and

measurements units, and verification by practical measurement

techniques not necessarily requiring modeling.

In response to the question concerning who makes the final

decisions on whether the licensee has demonstrated compliance with the

rule, the NRC or, as appropriate, the Agreement State will make this

determination. Where necessary the NRC or Agreement State will conduct

independent confirmatory surveys to ensure that the appropriate

criteria have been met.

10. Sites That Cannot Be Released for Unrestricted Use

Comment. Many public/environmental organization commenters stated

that licensees should not be permitted to walk away from a contaminated

site and that contamination should be removed to the extent that

radioactive materials and radiation are indistinguishable from

background. Many voiced opposition to any release of sites under

restricted use conditions. This opposition was based largely on concern

about the long term effectiveness of institutional controls to ensure

compliance with the conditions for restricted release.

Other commenters generally endorsed both the unrestricted and

restricted release of sites. With respect to restricted release of

sites, commenters:

(1) Stated that the NRC should better define the circumstances

which could qualify a site for restricted release;

(2) Recommended that the NRC give examples of acceptable

institutional controls for providing reasonable assurance that

specified dose limits are not exceeded; and

(3) Requested that the NRC publish guidance on determination of

necessary financial assurance for proper control and maintenance of a

site.

Some commenters recommended that the NRC adopt a dose level below

100 mrem per year as the upper dose limit in the event of failure of

the applied institutional controls. Still other commenters stated that

the 100 mrem per year restriction could foreclose onsite disposal of

wastes as presently permitted at uranium mill tailings sites and that

this restriction should be deleted. Several commenters requested that

the NRC better address the issue of consolidation and long-term care of

wastes at sites not suitable for restricted release.

One commenter said that engineered disposal cells might be the best

solution for sites with large quantities of slightly contaminated

soils, while another said that large volumes of slightly contaminated

soil with a few ``hot spots'' should be regarded as homogeneously

contaminated.

Response. The NRC believes that the rule should provide for both

unrestricted release and for restricted release of sites. Additionally,

there may be sites that will have to continue under license. The NRC is

issuing guidance, first in draft form for comment, on how it expects to

implement the provision for restricted release.

The 100 mrem/y restriction is designed to establish an upper bound

on the risk in the unlikely event of failure of institutional controls

or restrictions at the site. This restriction is also designed to

ensure that license termination under restricted conditions does not

result in a proliferation of de facto disposal sites. The Commission

believes that 100 mrem/y is an adequately conservative upper bound.

This dose corresponds to the maximum annual dose during the first 1000

years following decommissioning. In many cases, the peak dose occurs

during the first year following decommissioning. For these cases, the

predicted dose levels will be reduced by radioactive decay so that if

institutional controls or restrictions at the site were to fail some

time in the future the actual public dose would be substantially below

100 mrem/y in most cases. In cases where buildup of radioactive

daughter products or other conditions cause the peak dose to fall other

than in the first year after decommissioning, the predicted dose levels

are significantly below 100 mrem/y for the large majority of the first

1000 years after decommissioning.

The issue of an appropriate value for the dose in the unlikely

event of failure of institutional controls has been a key point of the

ongoing discussions between the EPA and the NRC. As noted in section

entitled ``Rationale for the Proposed Rule'' of this Statement of

Considerations, the Commission is specifically soliciting comment on

the appropriateness of this value, and the impacts associated with the

selection of other values such as 75 mrem/yr.

Disposal of tailings and soil cleanup at milling sites is regulated

under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA).

The impact of the dose limit on unique practices at uranium mill

tailings sites may require case-by-case consideration in the interest

of consistency with current regulation of tailings under UMTRCA.

11. Waste Disposal

Comment. A commenter stated that waste disposal issues must be

discussed in the EIS. Some commenters stated that the criteria do not

seem to recognize and should more adequately consider the non-linear

increase in waste volumes at low concentrations of radioactive

materials.

Several commenters stated that the NRC should consider allowing for

some decommissioning under restricted conditions with on-site

emplacement, storage, and monitoring of radioactive wastes. Several

commenters stated that previously-buried wastes should be cleaned up at

the time of decommissioning consistent with the generic cleanup

standard. Several others disagreed, saying that it is ``unfair'' or

unnecessary to include these previously-buried wastes.

Agreement State commenters were concerned over the adequacy of the

space at regional disposal facilities for the large amount of material

to be generated from the decommissioned sites. The concern was enforced

by the lack of a GEIS to review and assertion that data used in the EIS

for 10 CFR Part 61 is over 10 years old.

Response. Waste disposal issues, including matters of the

relationships between waste volumes and cleanup levels, are discussed

in the GEIS. The Commission maintains its position that public and

environmental risk is an overriding factor that requires the

consideration of the removal of previously-buried wastes as a part of

decommissioning. Even though a previous burial was carried out within

the regulatory requirements at an operating site, the potential

differences in conditions between the site as operated and as

decommissioned require such consideration. The requirements for

previously-buried wastes are consistent with the Commission's

established regulatory practice for decommissioning under the Site

Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP). The proposed rule requires an

analysis of site-specific overall risks, costs, and benefits in

deciding, for individual sites, whether or not the exhumation and

removal of previously-buried wastes is required.

12. Minimizing Generation of Waste

Comment. The NRC staff draft contained a section on minimization of

contamination. Most commenters supported the concept of minimization of

contamination, but several industry commenters preferred not to include

the proposed provisions in the rulemaking on radiological criteria for

decommissioning. Industry commenters stated that these concepts do not

need to be put in regulations because waste minimization and hence,

minimization of contamination, is commonplace in the nuclear industry

and is driven by such economic incentives as reduction of disposal

costs. Some commenters recommended that the NRC publish guidelines for

public comment on the actions that licensees are expected to take in

minimizing the production or release of contamination, and that the NRC

should similarly publish for public comment the criteria it will use to

determine if licensee proposals are acceptable.

Response. The Commission agrees that existing ALARA programs and

the cost of radioactive waste disposal provide sufficient incentive to

minimize radioactive waste. Therefore, requiring licensees to redesign

existing facilities or amend already approved radiation protection

procedures is unnecessary and would not result in any substantial

improvement in public safety. Therefore, Sec. 20.1408 (b) and (c) have

been deleted from the proposed rule. However, the Commission believes

that there may be substantial potential to reduce contamination,

facilitate eventual decommissioning, and minimize generation of

radioactive waste if special consideration is given to these issues

when designing new facilities. Therefore, Sec. 20.1408(a) has been

retained.

13. Radon

Comment. Those submitting written comments mostly agreed with not

establishing a separate standard for radon. Commenters noted, however,

that sites contaminated with radon-bearing-or-producing materials may

have great difficulty meeting the proposed dose goal and limit in the

staff's draft.

Response. The Commission believes that a separate standard for

radon is not needed and that NRC guidance being issued in support of

the rulemaking will provide licensees with sufficient information

concerning measurement problems that are associated with background

radon. Additional comments are invited with respect to the problem of

determining compliance with the NRC's radiological criteria at sites

contaminated with processed radon-bearing-or-producing materials.

14. Recycle

Comment. One commenter said that all ``radioactivity'' from

licensed use should be contained and not recycled. Another said that

recycling should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Response. The Commission believes the radiological criteria for

recycling is outside the intended scope of this rule but will be

addressed in a future rule. In the interim, the Commission will

continue to review this action on a case-by-case basis.

15. Comments Related to Definitions

Comment. There were a number of questions concerning definition of

terms used in the draft rule. There were also several suggestions for

additions, deletions, or revisions to existing definitions in the draft

rule, and there were some suggested new definitions. Questions were

raised concerning the use of terms such as, ``affected parties,''

``significant,'' ``average member,'' ``cumulative TEDE,''

``decommissioning goal,'' ``unrestricted use,'' and ``net public or

environmental harm.''

Some commenters objected to including fallout in the definition of

background radiation. Others agreed with the proposed definition or

proposed various additions, revisions, or deletions to the definition,

e.g., to change the wording starting with the current words ``global

fallout'' to ``global fallout from the testing of nuclear explosive

devices or from past nuclear accidents.''

Several commenters said that the term ``residual radioactivity''

needs clarification with respect to materials discharged from the site

in accordance with other provisions of the regulations in 10 CFR Part

20.

Response. The practical implication of these terms and others in

the proposed rule have been clarified in the guidance which accompanies

the proposed rule.

With regard to ``background radiation,'' the new definition is the

same as the existing definition except for the addition of the words

``or from past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl which contribute to

background radiation and are not under the control of the licensee''

after ``explosive devices'' in order to explicitly recognize that

radioactivity from past nuclear accidents contributes to background

radiation. Because the remaining wording has been adequate in the past,

the Commission sees no reason to further revise the definition at this

time.

The Commission agrees that the proposed definition of ``residual

radioactivity'' in Sec. 20.1003 was not clear with respect to materials

discharged at the site in accordance with other provisions of 10 CFR

Part 20. The definition has been revised to clarify the Commission's

intent.

Rationale for the Proposed Rule

Conceptual Basis

The overall conceptual basis for decommissioning, as proposed in

this rulemaking, consists of an objective to reduce the residual

radioactivity at the site so that it is indistinguishable from the

background, a limit on the dose considered acceptable for release of a

site with a stipulation that dose be as far below this limit as

reasonably achievable (i.e., ALARA), provisions in regulatory guidance

for administrative relief from performing sophisticated ALARA analyses

for licensees who have little or no site contamination, provisions for

restricted termination of a license when physical remediation

activities cannot achieve the limit, and enhanced provisions for public

participation.

The limit for release of a site is 15 mrem/y (0.15 mSv/y) TEDE for

residual radioactivity distinguishable from background. If doses from

residual radioactivity are less than 15 mrem/y TEDE, the Commission

will terminate the license and authorize release of the site for

unrestricted use following the licensee's demonstration that the

residual radioactivity at the site is ALARA.

The Commission expects the licensee to make every reasonable effort

to reduce residual radioactivity to levels that will allow unrestricted

release of the site. However, the Commission will consider terminating

a license in cases where restrictions must be imposed on the use of the

site to ensure that public doses are maintained below the 15 mrem/y

(0.15 mSv/y) TEDE limit, provided the licensee:

(1) Can demonstrate that further reductions in residual

radioactivity necessary to comply with the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit for

unrestricted use are not technically achievable, would be prohibitively

expensive, or would result in net public or environmental harm;

(2) Has made adequate provisions for institutional controls to

reduce annual TEDE from residual radioactivity distinguishable from

background to the average member of the appropriate critical group to

15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE;

(3) Has provided sufficient financial assurance to enable an

independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for

any necessary control and maintenance of the site; and

(4) Has reduced the residual radioactivity at the site so that the

TEDE from residual radioactivity would not exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) per

year even if the restrictions applied in the termination were no longer

effective in limiting the possible scenarios or pathways of exposure.

The Commission estimates that there may be several existing

licensed sites (no more than a few tens) containing large quantities of

materials contaminated with low level radioactivity where health and

environment may best be protected by onsite stabilization and disposal.

The contamination was generated over the last several decades using

practices that generally would not be found satisfactory today without

adequate plans and financial assurance for decommissioning. In some

cases, a responsible public or private entity may no longer exist or be

viable for discharging its responsibility for ensuring protection of

the public and the environment. In other cases, the contamination may

have been generated through research or development contracts with the

Federal government or given special consideration in Federal law. Due

to the unique characteristics of these sites when compared with the

much larger population of licensed nuclear facilities, the Commission

contemplates that the owners and operators of these facilities may seek

exemptions from the decommissioning criteria under the general

provisions in 10 CFR 20.2301.

Such sites, and the considerations associated with them, are not

unlike disposal sites for uranium mill tailings, and may need to be

provided with equivalent types of controls to ensure sufficient

protection. At a minimum, the Commission would require that the public

health and environmental protection requirements developed for these

unique cases be consistent with other appropriate regulatory

requirements for disposal of radioactive waste, including those in 10

CFR Part 61 ``Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Waste'' or 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A ``Criteria Relating to the

Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes

Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from

Ores Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content.''

Any Commission decision on such exemption requests and the

disposition of these sites would be made on the basis of a

comprehensive analysis of the risks and benefits of all viable

alternatives including remediation of the site to meet the criteria in

this rule. Proper disposition of these sites may require some type of

durable institutional control, such as placing the site under the

custody of a State or Federal agency, to ensure long-term protection of

the public and environment. For example, for a former licensed site in

West Virginia, the final disposition included action by Congress that

provided for transfer of the site to Federal custody and ongoing DOE

oversight. Such an analysis would have to consider all significant

risks to humans and the environment resulting from the decommissioning

process (including transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes

generated in the process) and from residual radioactivity remaining at

the site following termination of the license. The Commission

specifically solicits comments on this approach to the handling of

these unique cases, including proposals for alternative strategies

which could be used to assure adequate protection of public health and

the environment.

The Commission envisions that the scope of the exemption request

would be limited to the radiological criteria for unrestricted or

restricted release. Due to the unique nature of these sites and the

comprehensive evaluation necessary to support such an exemption

request, the Commission would require that a meaningful and substantial

process be used by the licensee or the NRC itself for informing and

involving the public in the decision. Consequently, the Commission

would not favorably entertain exemption requests unless they were

developed through a process consistent with the public involvement

processes required in this rule.

For any process conducted by the NRC, the Commission would solicit

participation from: the Environmental Protection Agency; local and

State governments; persons residing in the vicinity of the site;

citizen, environmental, environmental justice, and other public

interest groups; Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have

treaty or statutory rights that could be affected; and other affected

parties. For example, in reviewing proposed decommissioning actions at

two licensed sites in Ohio and New Jersey, the Commission has initiated

development of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for both sites

and recently held public meetings on the scope of the EISs with the

intent to fully explore the alternatives and potential impacts

associated with the disposal of the contaminated material. As a part of

this process, NRC is working closely with EPA, State, local

representatives, and members of the public to develop acceptable

alternatives. The site-specific process applied at these sites by the

NRC is attempting to include participation by all affected parties to

assure continued protection of public health and safety through a

viable and effective decommissioning approach.

Although the Commission recognizes there may be existing sites

where public health and the environment may best be protected by onsite

stabilization and disposal, the Commission does not believe that future

activities should result in additional sites that would not be able to

meet the criteria in this rule. Therefore, the Commission is proposing

to add a new Sec. 20.1408 to its regulations which would require that

applicants for licenses, other than renewals, describe in the

application how facility design and procedures for operation will

minimize contamination of the facility and the environment, facilitate

eventual decommissioning, and minimize the generation of radioactive

waste.

Definitions

The following definitions already present in the regulations would

be revised:

The definition of Background Radiation (10 CFR 20.1003) would be

revised so that fallout from past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl

which contribute to background radiation and are not under the control

of the licensee are included in the definition. The Commission does not

believe it is reasonable for licensees to be required to remediate

material over which they have no control and which is present at

comparable levels in the environment both on and off of the site.

The definition of Decommission would be revised to also provide for

termination of a license and release of property under restricted

conditions. This revision was requested by a large number of commenters

at the workshops on decommissioning. Those commenters felt that the NRC

should recognize that it may not be feasible to decontaminate some

sites to a level appropriate for unrestricted use and that restrictions

on the subsequent use of such sites could be used to provide an

additional measure of public protection.

The following new definitions would be added:

The Critical Group would be defined as the group of individuals

reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual

radioactivity given the circumstances under which the analysis would be

carried out. For example, if the site were to be released for

unrestricted use the Critical Group would be the group of individuals

reasonably expected to be the most highly exposed considering all

reasonable potential future uses of the site. This would include

renovation of structures, water use, and industrial, residential, and

agricultural uses of the land and structures. If the site were to be

released with restrictions, the licensee would have to assess both the

dose to the average member of the group of individuals reasonably

expected to be the most highly exposed assuming that the proposed

restrictions were successfully imposed and adhered to (the ``Critical

Group'' appropriate to this set of circumstances) and the dose to the

average member of the group of individuals reasonably expected to be

the most highly exposed if the proposed restrictions were to fail (in

essence the ``Critical Group'' for unrestricted termination of the

license).

The Critical Group, for purposes of screening dose calculations, is

defined for each scenario described in NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 1. In each

scenario, the Critical Group is an individual or relatively homogeneous

group of individuals expected to receive the highest exposure within

the assumptions of the particular scenario. The average member of the

Critical Group is that individual who is assumed to represent the most

likely exposure situation based on prudently conservative exposure

assumptions and parameter values within the model calculations. For

example, the Critical Group for the building occupancy scenario is the

group of workers occupying a building that has been decontaminated. The

average member of that group is assumed to spend 2000 hours per year

working in the building and is exposed to residual contamination via

the external, inhalation, and inadvertent ingestion pathways. A more

detailed discussion of acceptable methods for selecting the critical

group and estimating the dose to the average member of the group can be

found in Section III.G. of the draft regulatory guide.

This is a departure from the requirement in Sec. 20.1302 where, for

licensed activities, the licensee is required to assess the dose to

``the individual likely to receive the highest dose.'' However, in

contrast to licensed facilities where public doses normally result from

activities that are carefully prescribed and controlled, the public

doses from residual radioactivity at decommissioned sites may result

from a variety of activities for which the maximally exposed individual

is much more difficult to precisely define. Furthermore, in ongoing

operations licensed by the Commission, it is possible to update or keep

track of who might be likely to receive the highest exposure. In

decommissioning, there will be no ongoing mechanism that would allow

for adjustments of imposition of additional controls. Therefore, the

Commission believes it is more prudent to use the average member of the

critical group for assessing TEDE from residual radioactivity after the

license is terminated because this provides a reasonably conservative

estimate of public risk without attempting to speculate on which

specific individual may be expected to receive the highest dose.

The practice of defining and using a Critical Group when assessing

individual public dose from low levels of radioactivity similar to

those expected from a decommissioned site is proposed in Section 5.5.1

of the 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on

Radiological Protection (ICRP 60) and has been adopted in the current

draft of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Draft Federal

Radiation Protection Guidance for Exposure of the General Public. For

the purpose of this Subpart, the licensee would be required to estimate

the dose to the average member of the critical group from residual

radioactivity remaining at the site.

Indistinguishable from background would mean that the detectable

concentration of the radionuclide is not statistically different from

the background concentration of that radionuclide in the vicinity of

the site, or in the case of structures, in similar materials using

adequate measurement technology, survey methodology, and statistical

techniques.

Readily removable would refer to residual radioactivity, as defined

below, which is removable using non-destructive, common, housekeeping

techniques (e.g., washing with detergent and water) that do not

generate large volumes of radioactive waste requiring subsequent

disposal. This would not include techniques that produce chemical

wastes that are expected to adversely affect public health or the

environment. Readily removable would also not refer to residual

contamination dispersed in soil under conditions where removal of the

residual radioactivity could only be accomplished by moving large

volumes of soil.

Residual Radioactivity would include radioactivity in structures,

materials, soils, groundwater, and other media at the site resulting

from licensed activities at the site. This would include radioactivity

from all licensed and unlicensed sources used by the licensee but would

exclude background radiation. This term should not be confused with the

term ``residual radioactive material'' which appears in 10 CFR 40.4.

Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) would be a committee

constituted by the licensee to provide advice to the licensee on

decommissioning.

Scope

The proposed rule would apply to the decommissioning of all

facilities licensed by the Commission except for facilities or portions

thereof (e.g., waste disposal sites and uranium mill tailings) that are

already specifically covered in the regulations. It provides for both

unrestricted and restricted release of sites. The proposed rule would

not apply to sites already covered by a Commission approved

decommissioning plan if the plan was approved before the effective date

of the rule. This provision is designed to encourage licensees to

continue with ongoing and planned decommissioning.

After a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated in

accordance with the criteria in this proposed rule, the Commission

would require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it

determines that residual radioactivity remaining at the site could

result in significant public or environmental harm.

The Commission recognizes there may be existing sites containing

large quantities of materials contaminated with low level radioactivity

where public health and the environment may best be protected by onsite

stabilization and disposal with proper restriction of the site to

prevent human disruption of the site and exposure to the radioactive

contamination. There are precedents for these cases in the

stabilization of uranium mill tailings under the Uranium Mill Tailings

Remediation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) and the DOE Formerly Utilized

Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). In these cases, some type of

durable institutional control, such as placing the site under the

custody of a State or Federal agency, may be necessary to ensure long-

term protection of the public and the environment. However,

consideration of these actions would require extensive site-specific

safety and environmental analyses. In addition, input from affected

parties in the vicinity of the site would be desirable to determine

whether there are other local impacts that must be considered in

determining the best course of action and to ensure the long-term

effectiveness of the institutional controls. For these reasons, the

Commission has determined that these actions fall outside the scope of

this rulemaking in the sense that there may be site-specific

determinations using criteria other than those proposed in this

rulemaking. If, in the future, general criteria to evaluate these

actions can be developed, the Commission will consider additional

rulemaking to establish the criteria for general application.

The proposed rule would also require that all new applicants for

licenses, other than renewals, describe in the application how facility

design and procedures for operation will minimize contamination of the

facility and the environment, facilitate eventual decommissioning, and

minimize the generation of radioactive waste.

Radiological Criteria

The proposed rule would establish a dose limit for release of a

decommissioned site of 15 millirem per year (mrem/y) TEDE for residual

radioactivity distinguishable from background. The 15 mrem/y TEDE dose

limit was selected to provide both a substantial margin of safety below

the NRC's dose limit for members of the public and an appropriate limit

for the acceptability of release of a facility which would no longer be

subject to regulatory control.

The estimated lifetime risk associated with an annual TEDE of 15

mrem/y is approximately 4E-4. This estimate was arrived at by using a

risk coefficient of 4E-4 per rem and assuming an exposure lifetime of

70 years. The 4E-4 risk factor is roughly equivalent to the 3.92E-4

risk factor in Table 6.6 of the EPA NESHAPS Background Information

Document (EPA89). Use of this value is consistent with the

calculational methods of the Environmental Protection Agency which is

also promulgating regulations in this area. The 70-year exposure

lifetime provides a conservative estimate of lifetime exposure. The

Environmental Protection Agency is using a 30-year lifetime exposure in

estimating lifetime risk from residual radioactivity at decommissioned

sites. This is based on the assumption that it is unlikely that an

individual will continue to live or work in the same area for more than

30 years. Using a 30-year exposure lifetime the estimated lifetime risk

associated with an annual TEDE of 15 mrem/y would be approximately 2E-

4. A more detailed discussion of estimating lifetime risk can be found

in appendix B of the GEIS.

In selecting this limit, the NRC staff took into account

recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP and those criteria promulgated by

EPA and NRC which provide acceptance criteria for areas where

unrestricted access in the vicinity of facilities is permitted, such as

generally applicable environmental standards established by EPA and the

criteria used for remediation of contaminated sites under the Superfund

(CERCLA) program. The dose value of 15 mrem/y TEDE is generally

consistent with the risks implied by those criteria and with the

remediations which have been achieved.

Several commenters have argued that a 15 mrem/y limit for

unrestricted release is not consistent with the recommendations of the

ICRP and NCRP and that the limit should be raised to as high as 100

mrem/y. The Commission believes that an additional margin of safety

below 100 mrem/yr is necessary because the 100 mrem/y limit is intended

to apply to doses to the public resulting from all radiation sources

(NCRP Report No. 116, Section 15; ICRP Publication 60, Section 5.5).

Therefore, allocation of the entire 100 mrem/y dose to residual

radioactivity from the decommissioning of a single facility would be

inappropriate. Using a safety margin to limit the dose from a single

source to avoid a summation of exposures approaching the dose limit is

consistent with the recommendations of both the ICRP and the NCRP.

In addition, the cost/benefit impact analysis in the GEIS (Chapters

5 and 6 and Figures 7-1 through 7-11) indicate that costs of achieving

a 15 mrem/yr limit would not be unduly burdensome on licensees. In

those few cases where remediation to achieve 15 mrem/yr may present an

unreasonable burden, release of the site with restrictions placed on

its use provides an alternative means for achieving this level of

protection.

The proposed rule would also require that the licensee reduce any

residual radioactivity to as close to indistinguishable from background

as reasonably achievable. ALARA considerations are to include all

significant risks to humans and the environment resulting from the

decommissioning process, and licensees are to demonstrate why further

reductions below the limit are not reasonably achievable. Depending on

the site-specific ALARA analysis, any dose level less than or equal to

15 mrem/y may be considered ALARA.

However, in many situations, licensees who have little or no site

contamination should be able to readily achieve a dose level well below

the limit. The NRC will provide guidance as to how such licensees can

demonstrate compliance with Sec. 20.1404(a)(ii) without having to

perform sophisticated analyses to demonstrate that residual

radioactivity levels at their sites are ALARA. This should

substantially reduce the administrative burden on licensees who have

little or no site contamination (e.g., licensees that use only sealed

sources or short lived radioisotopes). There are approximately 17,000

NRC and Agreement State licensees, many of which are small businesses,

that are expected to benefit from this guidance without any compromise

to public health and safety.

The Commission recognizes that demonstrating that radionuclide

levels at a site are indistinguishable from background is a complex

task involving sophisticated sampling, measuring, and statistical

analysis techniques. The difficulty of the task can vary substantially

depending on a number of factors including the radionuclide in

question, the background level for that and other radionuclides at the

site, and the temporal and spatial variations in background radiation

at the site. Therefore, in order to assist the licensee in making these

determinations, the Commission will publish specific guidance on

acceptable methods which can be used by the licensee to demonstrate

that the concentrations of specific isotopes at the site are

indistinguishable from background. The Commission will also publish

guidance on acceptable methods for estimating annual TEDE to the

average member of the Critical Group. This guidance will include a

discussion of the type of scenarios and exposure pathways which should

be considered, and computer models for estimating the annual TEDE to

the average member of the critical group. The computer models will be

screening models that employ generically derived conservative

assumptions and factors. However, licensees will be able to substitute

assumptions and factors more appropriate to a particular site if they

can demonstrate that these factors and assumptions reasonably reflect

the existing and projected conditions at the site. Licensees may also

use other models or methods for estimating TEDE, provided they can

demonstrate to the Commission that these models or methods provide

reasonable estimates for the site to be decommissioned. This guidance

is described in NUREG-1500 ``Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release

Criteria for Decommissioning; Staff Draft for Comment.'' The Commission

requests comment on the appropriateness of the approach and the

methodology described in NUREG-1500.

As can be seen from Figures 7-1 through 7-11 of the GEIS, it

appears reasonable to expect that a number of licensees will be able to

remediate their sites to dose levels below the 15 mrem/yr limit at

reasonable cost. However, these same analyses indicate that in most

cases there are large incremental costs associated with reductions

below 3 mrem/yr, and that the incremental costs are due primarily to

the cost of demonstrating compliance rather than the cost of additional

remediation. Therefore, when attempting to achieve doses below 3 mrem/

y, costs can increase substantially with little or no additional

reduction in risk to public health or the environment. Section 7-5 of

the GEIS also indicates that levels of residual radioactivity which

produces a dose of 3 mrem/yr are generally difficult to distinguish

from natural background because they are comparable to local variations

in background radiation and substantially smaller than national

variations in background radiation. As a result, the staff draft

regulatory guide (NUREG-1500) proposes that, in order to minimize the

burden of documentation and analysis in such cases, the Commission

would consider documentation that the TEDE to the average member of the

critical group from all radionuclides distinguishable from background

does not exceed 3 mrem/y as sufficient for demonstrating compliance

with the ALARA requirement. The Commission invites comment on this

provision in the guide.

The proposed rule would broaden the definition of decommissioning

to include release for restricted use in addition to release for

unrestricted use. The underlying approach for restricted release is

that the risk for a member of the public should be limited to

acceptable levels, irrespective of whether that individual is exposed

during the conduct of some occupation or in residential or recreational

activities. Thus, the conditions for restricted release are premised on

restricting the use of the site so that average individual doses do not

exceed the 15 mrem/yr dose limit. While the circumstances of the

exposure (i.e., the duration or pathway) may thus be varied, the

underlying risk limit remains respected for any critical group of

individuals.

Licensees unable to meet the requirements for unrestricted use

would be allowed to request permission to release sites for restricted

use with subsequent termination of the license if they can demonstrate

that the following conditions have been met:

(1) Further reductions in residual radioactivity are not

technically achievable, the cost of achieving further reductions would

be prohibitively expensive, or further reductions would directly

produce environmental or public harm that is clearly excessive compared

to the health or environmental benefits achieved through these

reductions now or in the future.

The Commission has proposed this provision as the fundamental basis

for determining when a restricted termination of a license will be

appropriate. Technical achievability, prohibitive expenses, and

excessive environmental or public harm are the three areas in which the

Commission believes that alternative considerations should be examined

as part of the overall process of determining the most appropriate

action for a site. Clearly, if remediation is simply not possible given

the technological capabilities in existence at the time of

decommissioning, some other types of alternatives must be appropriate.

In terms of excessive costs, the Commission recognizes that there

may be situations where removal and disposal of large quantities of

material is simply not reasonable from a cost standpoint. An example of

this type of situation that has already been addressed is the disposal

of mill tailings, where a separate set of standards has been developed,

including provisions for institutional control. The third condition,

excessive environmental or public harm, has been included in

recognition that although remediations may be technically possible and

within the overall resources of society, the net damage, through

removal and disposal of materials, alteration of ecosystems, or

displacement of populations, could be too great to not be undertaken.

Considerations of this nature are best determined through public

participation, which is provided through provisions for a Site-Specific

Advisory Board.

The third condition also provides for the possibility that the net

environmental impact of completely remediating a site and then

constructing an entirely new site to perform a similar activity may be

inappropriate. An example of this could be the continued use of a site

for electrical power generation, where a number of existing facilities,

such as the turbine and electrical distribution system could be used

with a different energy source. This approach would need to be examined

on a case-by-case basis, and a determination made regarding the

appropriateness of remediating the site for unrestricted use vs some

type of restricted use in order to conserve environmental resources.

(2) There are adequate provisions for institutional and/or other

passive controls to provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE from

residual radioactivity to the average member of the critical group will

not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) per year. Institutional controls would

have to be enforceable by a responsible Government entity or in a court

of law in response to suits by affected parties.

This provision specifies the fundamental dose limit for

considerations of restricted termination. The core requirement is that

an individual should not be exposed to a greater level of risk than

that established for unrestricted use releases. Thus, the application

of restrictions must be able to reduce the average dose to the

appropriate critical group to the same 15 mrem/year value used as the

limit for unrestricted use. However, in the restricted use situation,

the critical group will be different from the critical group that would

need to be considered in the unrestricted situation. For example, a

restriction might be imposed that would prevent residential

applications or agricultural uses of the facility. These restrictions

would mean that critical group would have different exposure

characteristics (e.g., 8 hours per day while working in a building) and

thus, a larger quantity of radioactivity could be allowed to remain

onsite for the same dose.

(3) There is sufficient financial assurance to enable an

independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for

any necessary control and maintenance of the site. Acceptable financial

assurance mechanisms will include:

(i) Prepayment as described Sec. 30.35(f)(1);

(ii) Surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method as

described in Sec. 30.35(f)(2); or

(iii) Statement of intent in the case of Federal, State, or local

government licensees, as described in Sec. 30.35(f)(4).

This provision has been included to assure that mechanisms have

been established as necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness of

the controls that may be used to meet the dose limit. The ongoing

effectiveness of the restrictions will not necessarily be the

responsibility of the former licensee but could be vested in other

organizations, local governments, etc., which would continue cognizance

of the action. This responsibility could include periodic monitoring,

overviews of site access restrictions, or other activities that might

be necessary to support the proposed controls. Under this provision,

the amount of financial assurance that would be needed will be

determined on a site-specific basis, taking into account the proposed

restrictions, and the recommendations of the Site-Specific Advisory

Board.

(4) Residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced so that if

the site were released for unrestricted use, the TEDE from residual

radioactivity to the average member of the critical group is as low as

reasonably achievable and would not reasonably be expected to exceed

100 mrem (1 mSv) per year. This limit coincides with the NRC dose limit

for public exposure in 10 CFR Part 20.

This final condition is premised on the assumption that

circumstances could develop under which the restrictions, such as land

use or deed restrictions, might no longer be effective in limiting the

exposure scenarios. If, for example, a restriction against residential

or agricultural use were no longer effective in preventing those uses

of the land, then the assumptions about the exposure of the critical

group would no longer be valid. While this is not assumed to occur for

planning purposes, the Commission believes it is appropriate to have a

``safety net'' to prevent exposures in excess of the public dose

limits.

The development of this provision also has the effect of requiring

that some remediation be conducted at the site, rather than simply

allowing a licensee to develop a series of restrictions. The Commission

believes it appropriate that basic measures be taken to reduce the risk

and dose that could result from a site and that the public dose limits

form the minimum acceptable level of protection that should be provided

in the unlikely event that restrictions are not effective in reducing

the magnitude and scenarios of exposure.

The Commission specifically solicits public comment on the adequacy

of the 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year value as the ``safety net'' to prevent

exposures in excess of the public dose limits in the event that all

site restrictions fail. The recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP, as

well as Draft Federal Guidance being developed by the EPA, suggest

constraining the dose to members of the public from any single source

to less than 100 mrem/y as a way to ensure that the total public dose

from all sources does not exceed 100 mrem/y. The Commission has

followed this principle in establishing the dose limit for

decommissioning. However, in the case of the ``safety net'', the

Commission does not believe that fractionation would be necessary for

the following reasons:

(1) The 100 mrem/y cap, although being equivalent to the dose limit

for members of the public, represents a small fraction of the 500 mrem/

y dose that the Draft Federal Guidance suggests is acceptable for

members of the public in unusual circumstances. The Commission believes

that failure of all site restrictions at decommissioned sites is a

highly unlikely event.

(2) The 100 mrem/y value applies to the peak dose during the first

1000 years. For most radioisotopes, this peak dose occurs in the first

year and diminishes over time due to radioactive decay. This decay

provides an additional margin of safety which is equivalent to an a

priori fractionation of the limit.

(3) The 100 mrem/y value is less than the value selected for

controlling intruder scenarios for other types of facilities where some

type on institutional control (e.g. government ownership) is

contemplated.

However, the Commission is soliciting suggestions for alternatives

to the proposed safety net, including the use of some fraction of 100

mrem/y (e.g., 75 mrem/y) as the safety net. The Commission is

particularly interested in the relative merits of selecting a fraction

of the routine public dose limit in light of the required conservatism

in the calculation of the dose, and the rationale for selecting some

particular fraction. The Commission is also soliciting comments on the

relative benefits and impacts of the Commission's proposed safety net

and proposed options, including comments on the number of facilities

that could be impacted by selection of alternative values.

The Commission recognizes there may be unusual circumstances in

which the licensee may wish to seek an exemption from one or more of

the provisions of this subpart. For example, the licensee may feel it

is unnecessary to clean up a site to the requirements for unrestricted

release because the site is contained within a larger area where use

will be restricted for the foreseeable future. The Commission believes

these rare circumstances can adequately be handled under existing

provisions in Sec. 20.2301 which provides opportunity for the licensee

to request an exemption from any of the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20.

The Commission also recognizes there may be special environmental

or cultural issues associated with a particular decommissioning action

which would require more stringent implementation of the requirements

in this subpart

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.