# Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning; Proposed Rule NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-20427

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** August 22, 1994

## Text

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-20427. Public record. Not legal advice.