[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 161 (Monday, August 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20427]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 22, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Nuclear Regulatory Commission





_______________________________________________________________________



10 CFR Part 20, et al




Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning; Proposed Rule
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72

RIN 3150-AD65

 
Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend 
its regulations regarding decommissioning of licensed facilities to 
provide specific radiological criteria for the decommissioning of lands 
and structures.
    The proposed criteria would apply to the decommissioning of all 
licensed facilities and facilities subject to the Commission's 
jurisdiction. The Commission expects to apply these criteria in 
determining the adequacy of remediation of residual radioactivity 
resulting from the possession or use of source, byproduct, and special 
nuclear material. For high-level and low-level waste disposal 
facilities, the criteria would apply only to ancillary surface 
facilities that support radioactive waste disposal activities because 
criteria for closure of the remainder of the facility and termination 
of the license are currently specified. For uranium mills, the criteria 
apply to decommissioning of the facility but not to soil cleanup and 
the disposal of uranium mill tailings. The criteria would apply to 
decommissioning of nuclear facilities that operate through their normal 
lifetime, as well as to those that may be shut down prematurely. 
However, they would not apply to sites already covered by a 
decommissioning plan approved by the Commission before the effective 
date of this rule, if it is adopted in final form.
    The intent of this rulemaking is to provide a clear and consistent 
regulatory basis for determining the extent to which lands and 
structures must be remediated before a site can be considered 
decommissioned. The Commission believes that inclusion of criteria in 
the regulations would result in more efficient and consistent licensing 
actions related to the numerous and frequently complex site remediation 
and decommissioning activities anticipated in the future. The 
Commission has reassessed the basis for the residual contamination 
levels contained in existing guidance in light of changes in basic 
radiation protection standards, improvements in remediation and 
radiation detection technologies, decommissioning experience obtained 
during the past 15 years, and comments received from workshops held as 
part of this rulemaking effort.
    The NRC presently allows decommissioning on a site-specific basis 
using existing guidance. However, the Commission believes that 
codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in the regulations 
would allow the NRC to more effectively carry out its function of 
protecting public health and the environment at decommissioned sites by 
providing for more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources, 
consistent application across all types of licenses, and a predictable 
basis for decommissioning planning. In addition it would eliminate 
protracted delays in decommissioning which result as licensees wait for 
NRC to promulgate regulatory criteria before proceeding with 
decommissioning of their facilities.

DATES: Submit comments December 20, 1994. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission 
is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before 
this date.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.
    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
    Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or 
Wordperfect format, by calling the NRC Enhanced Participatory 
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning Electronic 
Bulletin Board, 1-800-880-6091 (58 FR 37760; July 13, 1993). The 
bulletin board may be accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and 
most commonly available communications software packages. Communication 
software parameters should be set as follows: parity to none, data bits 
to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1). Use ANSI or VT-100 terminal 
emulation. Background documents on the rulemaking are also available 
for downloading and viewing on the bulletin board. For more information 
call Ms. Christine Daily, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555. Phone (301) 415-6026; FAX (301) 415-5385.
    Documents related to this rulemaking may be examined at the NRC 
Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. 
Many of these documents may also be viewed and downloaded 
electronically via the Electronic Bulletin Board established by NRC for 
this rulemaking.
    Single copies of the regulatory analysis may be obtained by written 
request from RPHEB Secretary, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
    Single copies of the draft generic environmental impact statement 
(NUREG-1496): ``Background as a Residual Radioactivity Criterion for 
Decommissioning, Appendix A to the GEIS in Support of Radiological 
Criteria for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1501); or the 
staff's working draft regulatory guidance (NUREG-1500) may be obtained 
by written request or telefax (301-504-2260) from: Distribution 
Services, Printing and Mail Services Branch, Office of Administration, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
    The NRC requests public comment on the draft generic environmental 
impact statement (NUREG-1496). Comments on NUREG-1496 may be submitted 
to: Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of 
Information and Publication Services, Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Hand deliver comments on 
NUREG-1496 to 11545 Rockville Pike, Maryland between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 
p.m. on Federal workdays. Comments on NUREG-1496 may be submitted 
electronically as indicated elsewhere under the ADDRESSES heading.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James C. Malaro, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555, telephone (301) 415-6201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 
20 of its regulations to provide specific radiological criteria for the 
decommissioning of lands and structures.
    The NRC is using an enhanced participatory process for developing 
the criteria. This process included a series of seven workshops held 
from January through May 1993. The workshops were conducted at a very 
early stage of rulemaking to enhance participation of interested 
parties and the public with the following objectives: (a) To ensure 
that the relevant issues have been identified; (b) to exchange 
information on these issues; and (c) to identify underlying concerns 
and areas of disagreement, and, where possible, approaches for 
resolution. In July 1993, the NRC staff also conducted eight scoping 
meetings for the development of the Generic Environmental Impact 
Statement (GEIS) supporting the rulemaking.
    The proposed criteria would apply to the decommissioning of all 
facilities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, and 72, 
as well as other facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction 
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (AEA) and the Energy 
Reorganization Act of 1974. The Commission would apply these criteria 
in situations where remediation of radioactive material residues 
resulting from use or possession of Source, Byproduct, and Special 
Nuclear Material is undertaken. For high-level and low-level waste 
disposal facilities (10 CFR Parts 60 and 61), the criteria would apply 
only to ancillary surface facilities that support radioactive waste 
disposal activities because criteria for closure of the remainder of 
the facility and termination of the license are specified in 10 CFR 
Parts 60 and 61. For uranium mills, the criteria would apply to 
decommissioning of the facility but not to soil cleanup or the disposal 
of uranium mill tailings, which is covered in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 
40 and Environmental Protection Agency standards in 40 CFR Part 192. 
The criteria would apply to decommissioning of nuclear facilities that 
operate through their normal lifetime, as well as to those that may be 
shut down prematurely. However, they would not apply to sites currently 
covered by a decommissioning plan approved by the Commission before the 
effective date of this rule, if it is adopted as a final rule.
    The purpose of the rulemaking is to ensure that decommissioning 
will be carried out without undue impact on public and occupational 
health and safety and the environment. The proposed amendments enhance 
the existing regulatory framework by providing a clear and consistent 
regulatory basis for determining the extent to which lands and 
structures must be remediated before a site can be decommissioned. The 
Commission believes that inclusion of criteria in the regulations would 
result in more efficient and consistent licensing actions related to 
the numerous and frequently complex site decontamination and 
decommissioning activities anticipated in the future. The Commission 
has developed the basis for the residual contamination levels in light 
of changes in basic radiation protection standards, improvements in 
remediation and radiation detection technologies, decommissioning 
experience obtained during the past 15 years, and comments received 
from workshops held as part of this rulemaking effort.
    Current regulations do not explicitly address radiological criteria 
for decommissioning.\1\ The NRC presently allows decommissioning on a 
site-specific basis using existing guidance.\2\ However, the Commission 
believes that codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in 
the regulations would allow the NRC to more effectively carry out its 
function of protecting public health and the environment at 
decommissioned sites by providing for more efficient use of NRC and 
licensee resources, consistent application across all types of 
licenses, and a predictable basis for decommissioning planning. In 
addition, it would eliminate protracted delays in decommissioning which 
result as licensees wait for NRC to promulgate regulatory criteria 
before proceeding with decommissioning of their facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\On June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018), the Commission published a 
final rule on General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear 
Facilities. However, this rule did not specifically address 
radiological criteria for decommissioned sites.
    \2\Regulatory guidance, criteria, and practices include the 
following with emphasis on contamination levels that are As Low as 
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA): ``Disposal or On-site Storage of 
Thorium or Uranium from Past Operations'' Branch Technical Position, 
October 23, 1981, 46 FR 52061; ``Termination of Byproduct, Source, 
and Special Nuclear Materials Licenses,'' Policy and Guidance 
Directive FC 83-23, November 4, 1983; ``Termination of Operating 
Licenses for Nuclear Reactors'' Regulatory Guide 1.86, June 1974; 
letter to Stanford University from James R. Miller, Chief, 
Standardization and Special Projects Branch, Division of Licensing, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Docket No. 50-141, April 
21, 1982; ``National Primary Drinking Water Standards,'' 40 CFR 141; 
``Radiation Dose Guidelines for Protection Against Transuranium 
Elements Present in the Environment as a Result of Unplanned 
Contamination,'' 42 FR 60956, November 30, 1977. Guidance is 
specified in terms of acceptable levels of residual contamination at 
decommissioned sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the statutory 
responsibility for protection of health and safety and the environment 
related to the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special 
nuclear material under the AEA. One part of NRC's responsibility is to 
ensure safe and timely decommissioning of the nuclear facilities that 
it licenses and to provide guidance to licensees on how to plan for and 
prepare their sites for decommissioning. Decommissioning, as previously 
defined by the NRC, means to remove nuclear facilities safely from 
service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits 
release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the 
license.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under the AEA and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory responsibility 
to establish generally applicable standards for protection of the 
public from radioactive material (i.e., outside the NRC licensees site 
boundaries). The NRC is responsible for ensuring, through licensing 
requirements and other restrictions, that activities at facilities 
under NRC jurisdiction do not lead to radiation doses outside the 
facility boundaries that exceed EPA's generally applicable standards. 
For this reason, NRC has been coordinating closely with EPA in the 
development of the proposed decommissioning standards.
    A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by NRC and EPA in March 
1992 provides a basic framework within which NRC and EPA will endeavor 
to resolve issues of concern relating to the regulation of 
radionuclides in the environment. Under the guidelines of the MOU, EPA 
will make a determination as to whether the proposed decommissioning 
standards provide a sufficient level of protection for public health 
and safety and the environment. If EPA concludes that the NRC standards 
are sufficient, EPA will publish its findings in the Federal Register 
for notice and comment and propose that NRC licensees be exempt from 
the standards developed by EPA for non-NRC licensed facilities.
    Decommissioning activities are initiated when a licensee decides to 
terminate licensed activities. Decommissioning activities do not 
include the removal and disposal of spent fuel, which is considered to 
be an operational activity or the removal and disposal of 
nonradioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to 
terminate the NRC license. Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste 
not necessary for NRC license termination is not covered by these 
regulations but would be treated by other appropriate agencies having 
responsibility over these wastes. If nuclear facilities are to be 
reused for nuclear purposes, applications for license renewal or 
amendment, or for a new license are to be submitted according to the 
appropriate existing regulation. Reuse of a nuclear facility for other 
nuclear purposes is not considered decommissioning because the facility 
remains under license.
    After licensed activities have ceased, licensees are required to 
decommission their facilities so that their licenses can be terminated. 
At present, this requires that radioactivity in land, groundwater, 
surface water, buildings, and equipment resulting from the licensed 
operation be reduced to levels that allow the property to be released 
for unrestricted use. Licensees must then demonstrate that all 
facilities have been properly decontaminated and that, except for any 
residual radiological contamination found to be acceptable to remain at 
the site, radioactive material has been transferred to authorized 
recipients. Confirmatory surveys are conducted by NRC, where 
appropriate, to verify that sites meet NRC radiological criteria for 
decommissioning.
    There are currently about 22,000 licensees in the United States. 
About one-third of these are NRC licensees, while the remainder are 
licensed by Agreement States through agreements entered into under 
Section 274 of the AEA. Licensees include utilities, nuclear fuel 
fabricators, universities, medical institutions, radioactive source 
manufacturers, and companies that use radioisotopes for industrial 
purposes. About 75 percent of NRC's 6,700 materials licensees use 
either sealed radioactive sources or small amounts of short-lived 
radioactive materials. Sealed sources, including items such as check 
sources, do not pose a contamination problem unless the encapsulation 
is broken. Decommissioning of these facilities is typically simple 
because there is usually little or no residual radioactive 
contamination to be removed and disposed of.
    Of the remaining 25 percent, certain types of facilities (e.g., 
radioactive source manufacturers, radiopharmaceutical producers, and 
radioactive ore processors) conduct operations which could produce 
substantial radioactive contamination in portions of the facilities. At 
these sites, lands, facilities, or equipment may become contaminated 
through the use of radioactive material in forms which have not been 
encapsulated to prevent the spread or dispersal of material. When 
radioactive material in unsealed forms is used, such as in the nuclear 
fuel fabrication industry, in production of radiopharmaceutical 
medicines, or in research, the equipment used to process and handle the 
material becomes contaminated by the small quantities of material that 
adhere to surfaces of valves, piping, etc. If material is spilled, then 
the area of the spill becomes contaminated. These facilities will have 
to be decontaminated to acceptable levels before they can be released 
for unrestricted use and their licenses terminated. The population of 
nuclear fuel cycle facilities which will require decommissioning 
includes approximately 100 nuclear power plants (at 70 sites); 50 non-
power (research and test) reactors; 10 major fuel facilities (fuel 
fabrication and uranium hexafluoride production plants); 50 uranium 
mills; and 10 independent spent fuel storage installations. It is 
estimated that about 1,800 other NRC-licensed facilities could require 
significant remediation as part of decommissioning.
    Essentially everything that comes in contact with radioactive 
material must be considered contaminated and checked for the presence 
of residual radioactive material. Areas surrounding facilities could 
become contaminated by the movement of materials, equipment, and people 
into and out of the areas containing the radioactive material. NRC 
requires that contamination control procedures be used to minimize or 
prevent the movement of radioactive materials into other areas. 
Nevertheless, some areas may become contaminated over the course of 
time due to breakdowns in the control procedures. Contamination may 
also be spread by the movement of water or other fluids containing the 
radioactive materials through or along piping, equipment, walls, 
floors, sumps, drains, etc. In some cases, this has resulted in the 
release of significant quantities of radioactive material into the 
ground under or around buildings and facilities.
    In addition to contamination, some licensed operations can produce 
radioactive materials through the process of activation. In this 
process, materials become radioactive when they are bombarded by 
neutrons generated in certain nuclear operations. Examples of such 
operations include nuclear reactors, where metal reinforcing bars in 
concrete surrounding the reactor vessel may become radioactive through 
neutron bombardment. These activated materials may also need to be 
removed or disposed of during decommissioning.
    Several hundred NRC and Agreement State licenses are terminated 
each year. The majority of these licenses involve limited operations, 
produce little or no radioactive contamination, and do not present 
complex decommissioning problems or potential risks to public health or 
the environment from residual contamination. However, as the nuclear 
industry matures, it is expected that more and more of the larger 
nuclear facilities that have been operating for a number of years will 
reach the end of their useful lives and have to be decommissioned. 
Thus, both the number and complexity of facilities that will require 
decommissioning are expected to increase.
    The NRC has a program underway to effect timely decommissioning of 
about 50 sites, which warrant special NRC oversight either because they 
have not been decommissioned properly in the past or have been engaged 
in the decommissioning process for an extended period. The Commission 
has established a Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP), NUREG-
1444, October 1993) for effecting timely decommissioning of these 
problem facilities. Sites being handled under the SDMP vary in degree 
of radiologic hazard, cleanup complexity, and cost. Some sites comprise 
tens of acres that require assessment for radiological contamination, 
whereas other sites have contamination known to be limited to 
individual buildings or discrete piles of tailings or contaminated 
soil. Many sites involve active licenses, but some sites involve 
formerly licensed sites, or sites where the responsible party is unable 
or unwilling to perform cleanup. These sites also vary in degree of 
completion of decommissioning. At some sites, little or no 
decontamination work has been done; whereas at other sites, 
decommissioning is underway or license termination is in the offing.
    The effort to have these SDMP sites remediated and decommissioned 
has been hampered in part because licensees view the absence of 
definitive radiological criteria as an incentive to defer 
decommissioning pending issuance of formal NRC requirements. The 
General Accounting Office (GAO), which has been critical of the 
Commission's inability to effect timely decommissioning of these sites, 
has recommended that the NRC enhance its decommissioning efforts by 
reconsidering its radiological criteria for decommissioning.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\GAO Report to Congress, ``NRC's Decommissioning Procedures 
and Criteria Need to Be Strengthened,'' GAO/RCED-89-119, May 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Until new criteria are in place, the Commission intends to proceed 
with decommissioning nuclear facilities on a site-specific basis 
considering existing criteria coupled with the concept that residual 
radioactivity be as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Case and 
activity-specific decisions concerning decommissioning of sites will 
continue to be made as necessary during the pendency of this rulemaking 
process. Because the SDMP sites could pose unnecessary environmental 
and public risks or financial burdens if they are not decommissioned in 
a timely manner, the Commission's effort to effect timely 
decommissioning of these sites has been proposed in the Federal 
Register on January 13, 1993, (58 FR 4099). The NRC published an Action 
Plan to ensure timely remediation of sites listed in the SDMP in the 
Federal Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13389). The NRC does not 
intend to require additional remediation of sites in response to 
criteria established in this rulemaking, provided that the licensee or 
responsible party has already remediated the site or was in the process 
of remediating the site in full accordance with an NRC-approved 
decommissioning plan at the time of promulgation.
    Internationally, most efforts have been focused upon development of 
criteria for waste disposal and recycle of radioactively contaminated 
materials using guidance published by the International Atomic Energy 
Agency. Decommissioning criteria have generally been established on a 
case-specific basis. This approach is the same as the current approach 
employed in the United States pending the development of radiological 
criteria through formal requirements. The NRC staff is not aware of 
other international efforts similar to this rulemaking to define 
radiological criteria for decommissioning.

The Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking Process

    The normal pattern for NRC rulemaking is the development of a 
proposed rule by the NRC staff for Commission consideration, 
publication of the proposed rule for public comment, consideration of 
the comments by the NRC staff, and preparation of a final rule, as 
appropriate, for Commission approval. As directed and approved by the 
Commission, the NRC staff has enhanced participation in the early 
stages of this rulemaking process through a series of workshops for 
affected interests. These workshops were held from January through May 
1993 in Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA; Boston, MA; Dallas, TX; 
Philadelphia, PA; Atlanta, GA; and Washington, DC. The workshops 
elicited informed discussions of options and approaches for developing 
radiological criteria, and the rationale for options and approaches. 
While these workshops were not designed to seek ``consensus'' in the 
sense that there is agreement on how each issue should be resolved, the 
workshops were conducted at a very early stage of rulemaking to enhance 
participation of interested parties and the public with the following 
objectives:
    (a) To ensure that the relevant issues have been identified;
    (b) To exchange information on these issues; and
    (c) To identify underlying concerns and areas of disagreement, and, 
where possible, approaches for resolution.
    The Commission hopes that the interactions among the participants 
in the workshop environment also fostered a clearer mutual 
understanding of the positions and concerns of all participants. These 
workshops provided a number of themes, such as consideration of 
restricted use options, increased public participation in the site 
decommissioning process, and a desire to return sites to levels 
indistinguishable from natural background, that form the basis upon 
which the Commission has developed the provisions of this rulemaking. 
Comments made at these ``Scoping Meetings,'' the workshops, and related 
written comments were considered by the NRC staff in its preparation of 
a staff draft rule as described in the paragraph below. Comments were 
also used, as appropriate, in developing the Draft Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the rule.
    The Commission approved an additional opportunity for enhanced 
participation at an early stage of the rule development. Copies of the 
NRC staff's draft rule and summaries of comments received from workshop 
participants, NUREG/CR-6156, were sent to NRC Agreement States, 
workshop participants, and other interested parties on January 27, 
1994. A notice of availability of these documents was published in the 
Federal Register, and the documents were placed on the electronic 
bulletin board on February 2, 1994 (59 FR 4868). The intent of this 
informal comment period in advance of a proposed rule was to provide an 
opportunity for interested parties to comment on the adequacy of the 
draft criteria and the extent to which the criteria have considered the 
range of viewpoints expressed during the workshops and scoping 
meetings. The comment period ended on March 11, 1994.
    Concurrent with the NRC rulemaking on radiological criteria for 
decommissioning, the EPA is proceeding to develop standards and 
guidance for Federal agencies in the area of radiation protection, 
including standards for the cleanup of contaminated sites. The EPA 
National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology and 
the Subcommittee on Residual Radioactivity held public meetings in 
October 1993, February 1994, and May 1994 to discuss the issues 
associated with the EPA rulemaking. The NRC and EPA have coordinated 
their efforts in this area in order to ensure that effective and 
consistent site cleanup standards are established while minimizing 
duplication of effort. Accordingly, the EPA was an important 
participant in the NRC rulemaking workshops and is a cooperating agency 
in the preparation of the GEIS for the rulemaking. The NRC has also 
consulted extensively with EPA throughout the rulemaking process. It is 
anticipated that the information gathered during the workshops on the 
NRC standards will also be relevant and useful to the EPA efforts in 
the area of site cleanup standards. The objective of the NRC and EPA 
cooperative efforts is to attempt to reach an agreement that the NRC 
standards established in the enhanced participatory rulemaking are 
sufficient to provide adequate protection to the public health and 
safety for NRC-licensed sites. The EPA efforts could then focus on the 
site clean-up standards for non-NRC licensed sites, such as DOE and DOD 
facilities. This is consistent with the principles and procedures set 
forth in a Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and EPA 
published on November 16, 1992 (57 FR 54127), to guide each agency's 
actions in areas of mutual regulatory concern.
    The next two sections of this notice summarize the comments from 
the workshops and the comments on the NRC staff draft rule. The purpose 
of these summaries is to document the public comments and the NRC 
response to these comments, and to show how the NRC approach to the 
rulemaking has evolved as a result of public participation in the 
rulemaking process.

Comments From Workshops

    On December 11, 1992 (57 FR 58727), the Commission published in the 
Federal Register a notice that it was preparing to initiate rulemaking 
on establishing radiological criteria for the decommissioning of NRC-
licensed facilities. The notice listed a schedule for seven workshops 
throughout the United States beginning in January 1993. The purpose of 
the workshops was to solicit commentary from affected interests on the 
fundamental approaches and issues that must be addressed in 
establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning. Written 
comments on approaches and issues also were solicited.
    On June 18, 1993 (58 FR 33570), the Commission published in the 
Federal Register a notice of intent to prepare a Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement (GEIS) as part of the rulemaking action on 
radiological criteria for decommissioning. The notice listed eight 
meetings throughout the United States to be held in July 1993 for the 
purpose of discussing and receiving public comment on what should be 
covered in the GEIS.

Overview of Comments

    Over 7,000 comments were presented at the seven Workshops, eight 
scoping meetings, and in related letters. The NRC staff considered 
these comments in the development of the NRC staff's draft rule which 
was sent to NRC Agreement States, workshop participants, and other 
interested parties on January 27, 1994. Comments were also used, as 
appropriate, in developing the Draft GEIS for the rule.
    NRC held rulemaking workshops in Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA; 
Boston, MA; Dallas, TX; Philadelphia, PA; Atlanta, GA; and Washington, 
DC between January and May 1993. The workshop comments have been 
summarized in NUREG/CR-6156, ``Summary of Comments Received from 
Workshops on Radiation Criteria for Decommissioning.'' This report 
summarizes 3,635 comments categorized from transcripts of the seven 
workshops and 1,677 comments from 100 NRC docketed letters from 
individuals and organizations. NUREG/CR-6156 merely catalogues the 
comments and viewpoints; no analysis or response to the comments is 
included.
    The comments reflect a broad spectrum of viewpoints on the issues 
related to radiological criteria for decommissioning and associated 
subjects. The comments show little evidence of general agreement on 
issues except that most parties appear to agree that (1) the rulemaking 
should proceed and (2) the Commission's activities in decommissioning 
should recognize that it is not reasonable to expect all nuclear 
facilities to be remediated to a level that permits termination of the 
license and release of the facility for unrestricted use. While a 
number of additional themes emerged from the workshops, these themes 
cannot be characterized as having the general agreement of all of the 
workshop and meeting participants.
    Transcripts of the workshops and scoping meetings and copies of 
related letters are available for inspection or copying for a fee in 
the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), 
Washington, DC.
    The NRC also held public meetings on the scope of the GEIS during 
July 1993 in Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Oklahoma City, OK; and 
Cleveland, OH. Comments from these meetings were reviewed and comments 
which differed substantially from those from the workshops are also 
summarized in the body of NUREG/CR-6156. A summary of all of the 
comments from the GEIS scoping meetings is included as Appendix E to 
the GEIS.

Summary and Discussion of Comments

1. Need For and Scope of Rule
    Comment. Almost all commenters supported the NRC's plans to develop 
radiological decommissioning standards and recommended that the 
rulemaking go forward expeditiously. Some commenters recommended that 
the NRC consider and possibly establish both radiological and chemical 
decommissioning standards. Most commenters stated that the NRC should 
establish standards for both unrestricted and restricted release of 
sites.
    Response. The NRC is proceeding with a rulemaking which will 
establish radiological criteria for decommissioning. NRC's schedule 
calls for issuance of a final rule by May 1995.
    NRC's authority is limited by law primarily to ensuring protection 
of the public health and safety from radiological and nuclear hazards 
associated with source, special nuclear, and byproduct material. NRC 
has refrained from extending its reach to address non-radiological 
hazards except where specifically authorized by Congress (e.g., uranium 
mill tailings) or where these hazards would not otherwise be adequately 
controlled because of a regulatory void. Consequently, NRC is not 
proposing to include provisions in the radiological criteria to address 
non-radiological hazards. Although the rule would not establish 
criteria for disposition of nonradioactive hazardous and other wastes, 
licensees are reminded that they must continue to meet applicable 
Federal, State, and local standards for disposition of these wastes. 
The proposed rule provides for both unrestricted release and restricted 
termination of the license. If a licensee cannot satisfy the conditions 
for license termination, the license will not be terminated.
2. Basis for Radiological Criteria
    Comment. Several commenters recommended that NRC decommissioning 
standards be based on and be consistent with the scientific information 
and advice of such organizations as the National Council on Radiation 
Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the International Commission on 
Radiological Protection (ICRP). One commenter suggested that the NRC 
should determine whether the standards are to be technologically-based 
or politically-based; if the latter, do not waste time on technological 
input.
    Response. It should be noted that the NRC and its predecessor 
agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, have generally followed the basic 
radiation protection recommendations of the ICRP; its U.S. counterpart, 
the NCRP; and the EPA Draft Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for 
Exposure to the General public in formulating basic radiation 
protection standards. Recommendations of the ICRP and the NCRP were 
relied on in the revised ``Standards for Protection Against 
Radiation,'' which was published May 21, 1991 (56 FR 233360), and 
implemented by licensees on or before January 1, 1994. The proposed 
radiological criteria for decommissioning continues this practice but 
the proposed rule also recognizes the public's interest in and 
potential for contributing to the decommissioning process. The public's 
involvement through participating in the development of the criteria in 
this rulemaking, opportunities for review of decommissioning plans, as 
well as through participation on Site-Specific Advisory Boards as 
specified in this rule are expected to aid in the conduct of a 
decommissioning program that is understandable, technologically sound, 
and responsive to the concerns of affected parties.
    Comment. Several commenters recommended that the NRC consider 
adopting a risk limit standard equating to a radiation dose of 25 to 
100 millirem per year. According to two commenters, a 100 millirem per 
year limit would increase the cancer risk in the population only 
slightly above its normal incidence rate. One commenter believes that 
radiation damage per unit of exposure may increase at smaller doses. 
Other commenters stated that there may be a threshold for radiation 
effects and that there may be no adverse health effects at low 
radiation levels.
    Response. In the Supplementary Information for the revised 
``Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' the NRC stated that the 
standards are based upon the assumptions that:
    (1) Within the range of exposure conditions usually encountered in 
radiation work, there is a linear relationship, without threshold, 
between dose and probability of occurrence of stochastic (random) 
health effects such as latent cancer and genetic effects;
    (2) The severity of each type of stochastic health effect is 
independent of dose; and
    (3) Nonstochastic (nonrandom) radiation-induced health effects can 
be prevented by limiting exposures so that doses are below the 
thresholds for their induction.
    In the absence of convincing evidence that there is a dose 
threshold or that low levels of radiation are beneficial, the staff 
believes that the assumptions regarding a linear nonthreshold dose-
effect model for cancers and genetic effects and the existence of 
thresholds only for certain nonstochastic effects are prudent for 
formulating radiation protection standards and planning radiation 
protection programs.
    The NRC staff believes the dose limits and ALARA requirements of 
the proposed radiological criteria for decommissioning provide a 
reasonable basis for protection of public health and safety and the 
environment. However, the staff has also determined that 
decommissioning activities should not be allowed the entire dose limit 
of 100 mrem/y for members of the public. The staff has selected a value 
which is a relatively small fraction of the limit, consistent with 
other decisions of both the EPA and NRC for unrestricted access to 
areas.
    Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC establish a risk/
dose limit on the order of the variability of natural background 
radiation occurring across the United States as its decommissioning 
standard. The reasons given were that no health risks are attributable 
to background radiation variations and studies show that there is no 
increase in cancer incidence over a wide range of background radiation 
in the U.S.
    Response. The NRC staff believes that the overall objective for 
decommissioning should be the return of the facility to levels 
approximating background. However, the NRC staff recognizes that 
demonstrating that radioisotope levels at a site are indistinguishable 
from background will be a complex task involving sophisticated 
sampling, measuring, and statistical analysis techniques. The NRC staff 
also recognizes that the difficulty of the task can vary substantially 
depending on a number of factors including the radionuclide in 
question, the background level for that and other radionuclides at the 
site, and the temporal and spatial variations in background radiation 
at the site.
    Therefore, in the draft rule, the NRC staff proposed as a goal of 
the ALARA process that the Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) to 
the average member of the Critical Group from all radionuclides that 
could contribute to residual radioactivity and are distinguishable from 
background not exceed 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) per year. Demonstration of 
achieving this dose criterion would be considered as the only 
demonstration necessary to meet the proposed ALARA requirements of the 
rule. One of the reasons 3 millirem per year was selected is because 
variations of this magnitude typically are not distinguishable from the 
variation of dose from background radiation. Three mrem/y is well 
within the variability of natural background radiation across the U.S. 
and also within those variations experienced seasonally at particular 
sites. Based upon comments received on the NRC staff draft, the 
Commission has decided to remove the 3 millirem per year value from the 
proposed rule (see discussion under ``Comments on NRC Staff Draft'').
3. Individual vs Collective Doses.
    Comment. Several comments were made concerning how risk standards 
should be applied to the population who may be exposed to residual 
radioactivity at a released site. Most commenters favored applying a 
risk limit to individuals and believed it unnecessary to specify a 
collective dose limit (i.e., a limit on the cumulative dose in person-
rem/y to the entire exposed population). One commenter remarked that if 
collective dose is used, it should be applied in a comprehensive 
manner. For example, in evaluating an appropriate cleanup standard, the 
doses to the public from transporting material off site for disposal 
should be evaluated against the doses received by the public around the 
site if the material is left in place.
    Response. The NRC has considered both the collective doses to 
populations and the individual doses to the average member of the most 
highly exposed group of individuals (Critical Group). These 
considerations are reflected in the calculations presented in the GEIS 
prepared in support of this rulemaking. In the scenarios considered, 
the annual collective dose is quite small. Therefore, the staff 
concludes that limiting individual dose to the levels specified in the 
criteria will assure that collective doses will be small and that the 
public health will be adequately protected. This is consistent with 
past Commission practice in establishing radiological criteria.
4. Statement of Radiological Criteria
    In developing the staff's draft rule, attention was focused on four 
approaches: (1) establish an annual risk or dose limit for an 
individual, (2) establish an annual risk or dose goal, (3) require use 
of best available technology, and (4) require return of the site to 
background radioactivity.
    Comment. Most commenters from State governments, the nuclear 
utilities, the fuel cycle industry, the medical community and non-fuel 
cycle industry, cleanup contractors, and professional society/standard 
setting organizations favored a risk-based or dose-based standard over 
a standard based on best available technology or return to background. 
Most commenters from citizen/environmental organizations and some from 
other organizations favored a return-to-background standard. Many 
commenters objected to a best effort/best available technology standard 
for various reasons including the belief that it would be extremely 
subjective.
    Response. The proposed rule would establish a dose limit for 
release of the site of 15 millirem per year (mrem/y) TEDE for residual 
radioactivity distinguishable from background and require that the 
licensee reduce this residual radioactivity to ALARA. Sites meeting 
this criterion would be considered acceptable for release for 
unrestricted use and termination of the license. Fifteen mrem/y TEDE is 
consistent in terms of risk with the NRC release limits for low-level 
waste facilities (10 CFR 61.41), is consistent with the individual dose 
protection limit in the EPA Environmental Radiation Protection 
Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-
level and Transuranic Wastes, 40 CFR Part 191 (December 20, 1993; 58 FR 
66398), and provides a substantial safety margin below the NRC's 100 
mrem/y dose limit for individual members of the public. Use of a dose 
limit is consistent with long standing NRC (and AEC) regulatory 
practices for protecting radiation workers and the public. The use of a 
limit also provides a clear measure for determining the acceptability 
of a site and a clear basis for determinations of compliance with the 
regulations.
    The NRC staff agrees that the objective of decommissioning should 
be to reduce residual radioactivity at a site to levels that are 
indistinguishable from background. Therefore, the draft rule proposed 
to establish the following goal for decommissioning within the 
structure of reducing exposure below the limit to as low as reasonably 
achievable:
    (1) Reduce the concentration of individual radionuclides which 
could contribute to residual radioactivity at the site to a level which 
is indistinguishable from background;
    (2) Release the site for unrestricted use; and
    (3) Terminate the license.
    For purposes of determining when further ALARA efforts need not be 
further analyzed and documented, the Commission would consider that the 
ALARA requirement has been met if the TEDE to the average member of the 
critical group from all radionuclides that could contribute to residual 
radioactivity and are distinguishable from background does not exceed 3 
mrem (0.03 mSv) per year. Three millirem per year is a small fraction 
of the NRC's 100 mrem/y dose limit for individual members of the 
public, typically is not distinguishable from variations in local and 
national radiation background levels, and is consistent with the 
10-4 level of lifetime risk used by EPA for Superfund. Dose based 
criteria were selected over risk based criteria for ease of 
implementation. Based upon comments received on the NRC staff draft, 
the Commission has decided to remove the numerical values of 3 millirem 
per year from the proposed rule. However, the Commission remains 
committed to the objective of decommissioning to levels that are 
indistinguishable from background.
5. Consistency and Compatibility
    Comment. Many commenters urged that all regulatory agencies (EPA, 
NRC, State and local governments, etc.) use the same radiological 
criteria for decommissioning and that the agencies be consistent in how 
they apply the criteria. Some commenters said that the NRC's adoption 
of a risk/dose limit of 100 millirem per year, with a proper 
application of ALARA, would result in a 10-6 annual risk and a 
10-4 lifetime risk, which would be consistent with the EPA's 
Superfund remediation goals. Other commenters recommended that State 
and local governments be at liberty to adopt more stringent 
requirements.
    Response. The NRC is hopeful that the proposed criteria developed 
through the enhanced participatory rulemaking process will be 
acceptable to all regulatory agencies and will be consistent and 
compatible with the requirements of other regulatory agencies. The EPA 
and NRC have overlapping authority in the area of developing 
radiological criteria for decommissioning for nuclear sites. In 
addition, decommissioned sites, if not remediated properly, could later 
be subject to remedial action under EPA Superfund requirements. This is 
an outcome which is viewed as undesirable by both the EPA and NRC and 
is considered unlikely because the proposed NRC criteria are designed 
to be consistent with the risk range incorporated in EPA's Superfund 
requirements. NRC and EPA are developing decommissioning criteria in 
parallel rulemaking efforts. The NRC and EPA are coordinating their 
efforts in this area to ensure that effective and consistent site 
decommissioning standards are established while minimizing duplication 
of effort. Accordingly, the EPA was an important participant in the NRC 
rulemaking workshops and is a cooperating agency in the preparation of 
the GEIS for the rulemaking. The NRC has also consulted extensively 
with EPA throughout the rulemaking process. The objective is that EPA 
will be able to make a finding that NRC decommissioning criteria 
provide adequate protection for the public and the environment and will 
exclude NRC licensees from the EPA cleanup standards. In addition, 
State and local governments will have opportunities to participate in 
certain individual decommissioning actions carried out under the 
proposed regulation. Further discussion on participation may be found 
in item 7, below. Agreement State compatibility is discussed briefly in 
a separate section near the end of this supplementary information.
6. Finality
    Comment. Several commenters stated that the NRC's decommissioning 
standard should be long-lasting and provide a final solution for 
decommissioning sites that are contaminated with radioactive material. 
The NRC's standard should be consistent with EPA rules to assure that a 
site remediated under NRC's rules will not require further remediation 
under EPA rules.
    Some commenters questioned whether it is possible to have finality 
in decommissioning standards because of likely new information and 
improved technology in the future. They stated that sites should 
continue to be remediated as necessary to meet new standards. Those 
opposed stated that rules should be changed only if a substantial 
increase in public safety can be demonstrated.
    Response. The NRC staff believes that actions taken under the 
criteria in this rule need not be revisited unless, based on new 
information, there is reason to believe that residual radioactivity 
remaining at the site could result in significant public risk. 
Therefore, once a site has been decommissioned and the license 
terminated in accordance with the criteria in the rule, the Commission 
would require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it 
determines the level of residual radioactivity at the site 
substantially violates these criteria.
    Based on the NRC's experience in the SDMP and other decommissioning 
programs, it is important to provide a high level of assurance that 
decommissioning actions conducted under the current criteria will not 
need to be revisited in the future under potentially more restrictive 
criteria. Licensees have indicated a genuine reluctance to commit the 
large financial and corporate resources necessary for complex 
decommissioning projects without these assurances. Uncertainty with 
future criteria and the potential need for additional remediation 
introduces havoc in the planning and conduct of effective 
decommissioning. Without some degree of finality in the criteria, 
licensees may be motivated to forestall decommissioning actions pending 
development of more favorable criteria or less expensive 
decommissioning technologies and waste disposal options. This approach 
manifests itself in extended administrative appeals and litigation, 
which often redirects licensee resources away from efforts to reduce 
levels of contamination.
    At the same time, the NRC recognizes that there may be legitimate 
needs for additional remedial actions in the future if significant 
additional contamination is discovered at a site or if the technical 
basis on which the criteria are founded changes significantly, 
indicating that potential future residents of the sites may be at 
significantly greater risk than previously anticipated. Therefore, the 
proposed criteria allow for additional remediation, if necessary, if 
additional significant contamination is identified or if changes in the 
risk or health basis for the criteria indicate the remediation is 
necessary to protect the public against significant radiological risks.
    As noted in item 5, the EPA and NRC are working together closely in 
this rulemaking. Upon completion, the EPA will determine through a 
formal notice and comment rulemaking whether the NRC's rule provides 
adequate protection for public health and the environment. This should 
minimize the risk that in the future the EPA would require additional 
cleanup of a site which has been decommissioned in accordance with the 
criteria in this rule.
7. Community Involvement
    Comment. Many commenters recommended that the rulemaking should 
provide for and ensure local citizen group participation in overseeing 
the decommissioning of contaminated sites and the enforcement of 
requirements. Also, the role of tribal authorities should be addressed. 
Some commenters stated that the NRC should ensure citizen participation 
in decommissioning from the earliest stage of cleanup.
    Response. The NRC staff believes it is important for the public to 
not only be fully informed of the decommissioning actions at a 
particular site but also to be able to effectively participate in site 
decommissioning decisions. The proposed rule provides specific 
mechanisms for public participation in the decommissioning process, 
where participation is important to ensuring that the public is 
adequately informed about proposed decommissioning activities or that 
the public and environment are adequately protected in conjunction with 
reliance on institutional controls to restrict site access after 
license termination. These activities are in addition to whatever 
hearing opportunities are provided for a particular category of site by 
the Commission's existing requirements.
    Upon the receipt of a decommissioning plan from the licensee, or a 
proposal by the licensee for restricted release of a site, or whenever 
the Commission deems such a notice to be in the public interest, the 
Commission will:
    (1) Notify local and State governments in the vicinity of the site 
and Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have treaty or 
statutory rights that could be affected by the decommissioning;
    (2) Publish a notice in the Federal Register as well as in other 
media, such as local newspapers, which are readily accessible to 
individuals in the vicinity of the site; and
    (3) Solicit public comment on the proposed decommissioning action.
    For decommissioning actions where the licensee proposes to request 
license termination with land use restrictions, the licensee will be 
required to convene a Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) for the 
purpose of obtaining advice from affected parties regarding the 
proposed decommissioning. The SSAB will function at the planning stages 
of decommissioning, at the time the licensee is developing the 
decommissioning plan for the facility. The purpose of the SSAB is to 
provide recommendations to the licensee on:
    (1) Whether there are ways to reduce residual radioactivity to the 
levels that will permit release for unrestricted use which are 
technically achievable, will not be prohibitively expensive, and will 
not result in net public or environmental harm;
    (2) Whether provisions for institutional controls proposed by the 
licensee will:
    (a) Provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE from residual 
radioactivity distinguishable from background to the average member of 
the Critical Group will not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE per year,
    (b) Be enforceable,
    (c) Impose undue burdens on the local community or other affected 
parties; and
    (3) Whether the licensee has provided sufficient financial 
assurance to enable an independent third party to assume and carry out 
responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of the site.
    The licensee will be responsible for establishing the SSAB and 
developing appropriate ground rules and operating procedures with the 
SSAB's advice.
    SSAB membership, to the extent that representatives are willing to 
participate, will have to:
    (1) Reflect the full range of interests in the affected community 
and region and be composed of individuals who could be directly 
affected by residual radioactivity at the decommissioned site, and
    (2) Include representatives from the licensee; local and State 
governments; workers; persons residing in the vicinity of the site; 
citizen, environmental, environmental justice, and other public 
interest groups; and Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have 
treaty or statutory rights that could be affected.
    SSAB meetings will be open to the public. The licensee will be 
required to provide adequate public notice of the location, time, date, 
and agenda for the meetings at least two weeks in advance of each 
meeting. All records generated or reviewed by the SSAB will become part 
of the decommissioning docket and be available for public inspection.
8. Stability and Flexibility
    Comment. Several commenters stated that NRC decommissioning 
standards are needed to facilitate long-term planning by the nuclear 
industry and to provide stability against constantly changing criteria 
over the years. Some commenters stated that even generic standards may 
not be completely stable because they will need to be changed as a 
result of newly perceived health effects and improvements in 
technology.
    Many commenters indicated that the rule must be flexible enough to 
accommodate site differences, e.g., types of radionuclides present, the 
geology and environmental surroundings, individuals who may be exposed, 
and possible exposure patterns.
    Most commenters favored a generic standard over site-specific 
standards. While supporting the establishment of a generic standard, 
some urged the NRC to permit site-specific considerations and site-
specific modeling for licensees to demonstrate compliance and to ensure 
participation by local communities. One commenter stated it would be a 
mistake to use a generic ALARA evaluation for all sites. Several 
commenters recommended site-specific ALARA assessments. Some 
commenters, particularly in the GEIS scoping meetings, suggested that 
the rule only provide the process for establishing site-specific 
criteria.
    Response. The staff agrees that there is a need for consistent and 
stable radiological criteria for the decommissioning of licensed 
nuclear facilities throughout the United States. Therefore, this 
rulemaking would establish a single set of radiological criteria that 
would apply to the decommissioning of all sites. However, the staff 
also recognizes the need for flexibility in applying these criteria 
because of constraints posed by site specific conditions (e.g. geology, 
hydrology, meteorology, and radiation background levels) and to provide 
opportunity for meaningful participation by local communities in 
individual decommissioning actions. Therefore, the rule proposed by the 
staff provides for site-specific implementation of the generic 
criteria. The Commission would also publish regulatory guidance along 
with the rule that describes methods for site-specific implementation 
of the criteria. This guidance includes conduct of site 
characterization and surveys, specific radionuclide concentration and 
surface activities that would be considered by the NRC staff to meet 
the decommissioning limit, and modeling acceptable to the NRC staff to 
develop more site-specific values of concentration or surface activity 
based upon the factors unique to the activity being decommissioned. In 
this regard, the NRC is working with the EPA and the DOE to develop a 
Federal Government manual for the conduct of surveys to determine 
compliance with decommissioning criteria. When completed, this effort 
will assist in the consistent treatment of all sites requiring 
remediation.
    The NRC staff believes that generic criteria should be established 
for decommissioning and that codifying radiological criteria for 
decommissioning in the regulations would:
    (1) Allow the NRC to more effectively assure protection of public 
health and the environment at decommissioned sites;
    (2) Result in more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources;
    (3) Lead to more consistent and uniform application across all 
types of licenses;
    (4) Provide a more stable basis for decommissioning planning; and
    (5) Eliminate protracted delays in decommissioning that result as 
licensees wait for generic regulatory criteria before proceeding with 
decommissioning of their facilities.
    The NRC does not favor the option suggested of providing a process 
based rule whereby the criteria codified would only be for the process 
to be used in establishing site-specific radiological criteria. This 
approach would be essentially the same as the option of remaining with 
the current status quo. In general, a site-specific approach can lead 
to considerable delays and increased uncertainty on the part of all 
parties associated with the decommissioning. Further, this approach 
would be inappropriate and burdensome for the large number of licensees 
using sealed sources or radionuclides with relatively short half-lives.
9. ALARA Considerations
    Comment. Under the ALARA concept, decommissioning activities are 
continued beyond meeting applicable risk/dose limits in efforts to 
reduce radiation exposures As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). 
Most commenters recommended that the NRC's radiological criteria should 
incorporate this principle. Several commenters stated that State and 
local governments should be involved in ALARA determinations. However, 
other commenters expressed distrust of the licensees' and regulatory 
agencies' application of the ALARA process because it involves 
financial tradeoffs and licensees are motivated to maximize their 
profits.
    Response. The proposed rule requires application of the ALARA 
concept, provided that potential doses are constrained within limiting 
doses under a range of conditions. NRC anticipates that many licensees, 
particularly sealed source users or those who use relatively short-
lived radioactive materials, will be able to satisfy the ALARA criteria 
with an analysis of projected dose levels. In these cases, extensive 
additional documentation to support an ALARA determination would not be 
required. State and local governments and other affected parties will 
be involved in ALARA determinations through opportunities to comment on 
decommissioning proposals and participation on the Site-Specific 
Advisory Board in those cases where the licensee is seeking license 
termination under restricted conditions. This level of involvement 
provides for transparent application of the ALARA considerations and 
safeguards against excessive licensee attention to cutting costs to 
maintain profit margins.
    Comment. Many commenters stated that for the most effective use of 
resources and fairness, the NRC must consider in the risk-benefit 
balance not only radiological risks to workers and the public but, 
also, non-radiological risks and indirect risks associated with the 
regulation of decommissioning activities.
    Response. The staff agrees that all significant public and 
environmental risks should be considered. The GEIS for this rulemaking 
assesses both radiological and non-radiological impacts for the 
proposed rule and several alternative actions, including the 
alternative of no remedial action. In addition, the proposed rule would 
require that the licensee, when determining ALARA for a specific 
decommissioning, consider all significant radiological and non-
radiological risks resulting from residual radioactivity and from the 
decommissioning process itself (including transportation and disposal 
of radioactive wastes generated in the process).
    In some cases, the necessary ALARA analysis will go beyond the 
relatively simple cost-benefit analysis that has typically been applied 
in the nuclear industry in limiting worker exposures because the types 
of risks being considered are not things that can be easily quantified 
or compared. For example, transportation poses immediate risks in terms 
of fatalities due to highway accidents in hauling the radioactive 
contamination to appropriate disposal sites. Some individuals and 
organizations have suggested that these anticipated fatalities should 
not be considered as having the same seriousness or likelihood as the 
potential deaths at some point in the future of individuals that may 
inhabit former nuclear sites after license termination. ALARA, or 
perceptions of what should be considered as ALARA, may also vary 
because of values placed on minimizing the number of new disposal 
sites, preserving existing resources, or preserving viable industries 
for jobs. Each of these factors were discussed in the workshops, and 
the staff believes that these same factors may need to be considered in 
determining the ALARA level for remediation at a particular site. The 
NRC is developing guidance on how the ALARA process could be applied in 
evaluating alternative radiological criteria for decommissioning on a 
site-specific basis.
    Comment. Another commenter stated that, ``there is no ecological or 
conservation basis for establishing radiation protection standards 
different from those * * * involved in any other health issue for which 
benefits are weighed against costs.''
    Response. The NRC staff agrees with this stated conclusion that, as 
a guiding principle, radiation protection standards do not warrant 
different treatment than those for other health issues. In this regard, 
the staff has carefully considered both the criteria and the 
implementation of those criteria in other environmental remediation 
programs (e.g., the EPA Superfund program). The staff believes the 
criteria proposed in this rulemaking are generally consistent with 
those used in other environmental remediation programs.
    Comment. Several commenters stated that cleaning up to any 
specified level is technically achievable and is simply a matter of how 
much it will cost. Some believed that decommissioning costs to return 
sites to unrestricted use could be so high that the sites should be 
kept under continued control and maintained as a restricted area. Some 
commenters suggested that money saved on unnecessary decommissioning 
activities might be used in other activities more beneficial to the 
public. Other commenters stated that money saved on decommissioning 
costs would not necessarily be available for societal betterment.
    Response. The proposed rule recognizes that it may not be 
reasonable to remediate some sites to a level that permits release for 
unrestricted use. The costs involved, either in dollars or in potential 
harm to the environment or people, may be prohibitive. In these cases, 
the proposed rule provides for termination of the license under 
restricted conditions. The staff is also aware that in some unusual 
cases sites may have to remain under license indefinitely. For example, 
the NRC is aware of certain sites that are so contaminated by elevated 
levels of the naturally occurring radionuclides uranium, thorium, and 
their decay products that it would be extremely difficult and costly to 
satisfy the proposed criteria for unrestricted or restricted release. 
In these cases, the staff anticipates that the sites would have to 
remain under a license indefinitely until new, more efficient 
technologies are developed or the financial resources become available 
to pay for more complete remediation. The Commission has no authority 
over expenditure of funds that might be saved by avoiding what were 
termed ``unnecessary decommissioning activities.''
10. Site Remediation
    Comment. Several commenters stated that, although the cost of 
decommissioning could be high, remediation technologies are available 
for achieving whatever level is set by the NRC. The NRC should describe 
acceptable methodologies for remediation and measurement to reduce 
subjective judgments and should ensure that workers who perform 
remediation are appropriately trained and protected.
    Response. Before the effective date of the final rule, the NRC will 
provide interim guidance for use and comment on acceptable 
methodologies for demonstrating compliance with the Commission's 
residual radioactivity criteria. After one to two years' implementation 
experience is gained from use of the interim guidance, the collected 
comments will be addressed and the final guidance will be issued. 
However, the NRC staff does not believe that it would be appropriate to 
prescribe, a priori, the methods to be used. Licensees must be able to 
take advantage of whatever safe methodologies may be available for 
achieving remediation that complies with the criteria for 
decommissioning.
    Workers performing decommissioning must receive training in 
radiation protection according to the requirements of the Commission's 
requirements in 10 CFR 19.12, ``Instructions to Workers.'' Likewise, 
workers participating in decommissioning activities will be subject to 
all of the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20, including requirements related 
to personnel monitoring, respiratory protection, occupational dose 
limits, and ALARA. In this regard, the staff does not view the conduct 
of decommissioning activities to be any different from other 
operational activities licensed by the Commission.
11. Demonstrating Compliance
    Comment. Several commenters stated that demonstration of compliance 
with NRC decommissioning rules and applicable radiological limits is a 
major issue. The commenters believe the NRC must provide clear 
guidelines with respect to the kinds of measurements that are necessary 
and the models that are acceptable to demonstrate compliance. With 
respect to measurements, guidance should cover:
    (1) Acceptable measurement methods;
    (2) Extent of measurements needed;
    (3) Use of field instruments versus laboratory instruments;
    (4) Statistical sampling; and
    (5) Calibration standards and measurement certification.

With respect to models and methodologies, guidance should be 
provided on their use, uncertainties, and how to apply site-specific 
characteristics. The NRC must make sufficient confirmatory 
measurements to check that the standards have been met and NRC 
should enforce the standards.

    Several commenters pointed out that, whatever risk standard the NRC 
may adopt, compliance will likely need to be determined by a computer 
model except for small operations when contamination levels are within 
specified generic criteria. Other commenters stated that 
decontamination limits should be established and dose modeling should 
not be relied on to demonstrate compliance. Comments were split on 
whether risk limits might be needed for different exposure pathways.
    Response. Before the effective date of the final rule, NRC plans to 
issue specific guidance that includes conservative radiation levels, 
surface contamination limits, and radioactivity concentrations for use 
by licensees who elect to apply a generic model to demonstrate 
compliance. Guidance on measurements covering the above listed five 
subjects will also be provided. The NRC appreciates that guidance is 
essential especially where the licensee must demonstrate compliance 
with criteria that require reduction of residual radioactivity to near 
background levels. The NRC expects to make sufficient confirmatory 
measurements to ensure compliance with the criteria.
    The proposed rule limits the total exposure from all pathways and, 
except for the purpose of groundwater protection, does not set limits 
for individual pathways. The groundwater protection requirement has 
been included at the request of the EPA to ensure conformance with EPA 
groundwater protection requirements. Because exposure pathways vary in 
importance to public dose depending on the radioisotope involved, site-
specific parameters, and the circumstances under which the site might 
be used after decommissioning, the staff believes that, as a general 
rule, no useful purpose would be served by placing limits on individual 
pathways. In the selection of conservative default values for use by 
licensees who do not wish to utilize site-specific modeling, the most 
critical pathways and scenarios of exposure are assumed to be dominant. 
The absence of limits on individual pathways provides the licensee with 
more flexibility in limiting radiation exposures while at the same time 
providing adequate overall public protection.
12. Sites Which Cannot Be Released for Unrestricted Use
    Comment. Many commenters stated that the NRC should establish 
standards for both unrestricted and restricted release of sites while 
others recommended that the NRC require all sites to be remediated 
suitably for unrestricted use. Some commenters stated that sites should 
continue to be licensed by the NRC if they cannot be reasonably 
decontaminated. Also, commenters stated that the NRC should consider 
the option of restricted future use of decommissioned facilities only 
after a rigorous public participation process. Many commenters stated 
that unrestricted release should be the goal, but that realistically, 
some sites cannot be remediated suitably for unrestricted release.
    Response. The proposed rule provides for both unrestricted release 
and restricted termination of the license under prescribed conditions. 
The requirement that the licensee convene a Site-Specific Advisory 
Board early in the development of proposed decommissioning plans should 
help ensure substantive public participation in decisions concerning 
possible restricted termination of the license. As previously 
discussed, the staff is aware of sites, such as sites with significant 
volumes of thorium contamination, that will require extensively 
remedial efforts to achieve the proposed requirements for restricted or 
unrestricted release. If these sites cannot be remediated to achieve at 
least the restricted release criteria, then the site license will 
remain in effect indefinitely until technology or resources become 
available to achieve compliance with the criteria. In the interim 
period, NRC will ensure appropriate control of the licensed site on a 
site-specific basis, including access restrictions, environmental 
monitoring, personnel monitoring, posting, mitigative actions, and 
other measures directed at ensuring the stability of the radioactive 
material and protection of the public health and the environment.
13. Waste Disposal
    Comment. Several commenters questioned whether there is enough 
space at a regional disposal facility for the voluminous soils and 
other materials that are expected from decommissioned sites. Other 
commenters stated that irrespective of where or how wastes are 
disposed, the costs of nuclear waste management will be high. Some 
commenters suggested that the option of leaving radioactive wastes on-
site should be considered as a temporary or intermediate option to 
permit decay of radioactive wastes and allow time for resolving long-
term waste disposal problems.
    Response. The NRC staff recognizes that decommissioning to 
radiation levels approaching background may produce large volumes of 
low-level waste which could affect the availability of regional 
disposal capacity. However, the proposed rule would require the 
licensee to consider significant radiation doses and risks resulting 
from transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes generated in the 
decommissioning process when determining ALARA for a specific 
decommissioning action. If disposal capacity were to become temporarily 
limited, on-site storage and containment of wastes may be necessary 
until a disposal site becomes available. However, any temporary onsite 
storage and containment of radioactive wastes be done under the 
provisions of an existing NRC license, and the site would not be 
decommissioned until this waste had been removed from the site. The 
radiological and non-radiological impacts associated with disposal of 
the types of radioactive waste generated in decommissioning were 
considered in NRC's development of the Environmental Impact Statement 
in support of the low-level waste disposal requirements in 10 CFR Part 
61. Impacts associated with extended storage of waste onsite or at a 
centralized storage facility would typically be considered as part of 
environmental analysis in support of issuing or renewing facility 
licenses or of approving decommissioning actions at a licensed 
facility.
14. Minimizing Generation of Waste
    Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC discourage or 
stop licensing nuclear operations that generate nuclear wastes. Several 
commenters stated that environmental organizations would be willing to 
talk about ways to decommission nuclear operations and to dispose of 
radioactive materials only if power plants were no longer permitted to 
operate. Other commenters supported the continuation of nuclear power. 
One commenter urged the NRC not to take sides for or against nuclear 
power and stated that the policy debate on the relative merits of 
various power-generating options should be held in another forum (e.g., 
Congress). Some commenters observed that high costs of decommissioning 
and waste disposal could help to minimize waste generation. Some 
commenters recommended that the rulemaking should deal with source 
reduction of nuclear wastes. Some commenters suggested that 
decommissioning proposals should be submitted and approved at the 
design stage and, consequently, newer facilities should be easier to 
decommission.
    Response. The NRC agrees that newly licensed facilities should be 
encouraged in designing and operating nuclear facilities to minimize 
the generation of radioactive waste and facility contamination. The 
proposed rule would require applicants for licenses, other than 
renewals, after the effective date of the rule to describe in the 
application how facility design and procedures for operation will 
minimize contamination of the facility and the environment, facilitate 
eventual decommissioning, and minimize the generation of radioactive 
waste.
15. Radon
    Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC should impose 
limits to control exposure from radon emissions at decommissioned sites 
because radon exposures could be a significant health problem. 
Commenters in favor of NRC setting a radon standard stated it should be 
possible to make a good estimate of how much radon comes from licensed 
material. Commenters not supporting the NRC's setting a radon standard 
stated that the need to deal with radon at licensed sites should be 
considered site-to-site and that radon control should be left to local 
zoning boards and housing authorities.
    Response. The NRC staff believes that it is not possible to measure 
or distinguish concentrations of radon which will produce radiation 
doses of a few mrem TEDE/y above background using current technology. 
This belief is based on:
    (1) Recognition of the ubiquitous nature of radon in the general 
environment;
    (2) Large uncertainties in the models used to project radon 
concentrations in indoor air based on soil concentrations of 
precursors; and
    (3) Limitations of existing measurement techniques in 
distinguishing between elevated radon concentrations and radon 
attributed to natural sources. Therefore, the staff does not propose to 
establish a separate standard for radon. Instead, exposure to radon at 
decommissioned sites would be controlled by requiring the licensee to 
reduce the residual concentrations of radon precursors like uranium, 
thorium, and radium to levels within the limit for unrestricted use 
and, using the ALARA principle, toward levels which are 
indistinguishable from background levels.
16. Environmental and Social Considerations
    Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC develop standards 
for protecting natural ecosystems in addition to standards protecting 
humans. Others expressed concern for environmental protection without 
recommending for or against establishing separate environmental 
standards. A large number of commenters recommended that protection of 
human health is sufficient to protect any known ecological system. 
Therefore, only a standard for protecting humans is needed. Commenters 
stated that this is the view of the International Commission on 
Radiological Protection.
    Many commenters recommended that case-by-case consideration should 
be given for special environmental and social/cultural issues 
associated with homeland, historical sites, and Native American lands 
because they contain religious sites and sacred areas.
    Several commenters cautioned against establishment of unnecessarily 
restrictive decommissioning standards that could cause severe 
environmental damage trying to clean up soil and vegetation to 
background levels because these actions could totally change a site's 
ecology.
    Response. The NRC considered the possible need for radiation 
standards specifically designed to protect the environment. This 
analysis is reflected in the draft GEIS. Based on this analysis, the 
staff concludes that the radiological criteria in the proposed rule 
which are designed to protect public health should also provide 
adequate environmental protection.
    However, the NRC staff recognizes there may be environmental or 
cultural issues associated with a particular decommissioning action 
which require special consideration. These issues can best be handled 
on a site-by-site basis as part on the decommissioning plan review 
process and as part of the Commission's environmental review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Where necessary, opportunity 
for public comment and use of the Site-Specific Advisory Board will 
provide a mechanism for local citizens and other affected parties to be 
directly involved in addressing these issues.
17. Recycle
    Comment. Comments were offered for and against whether NRC should 
permit recycling of contaminated materials. Those in favor recommended 
recycling to save resources. Those opposed recommended against 
recycling to limit public risk. Other commenters stated that the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recommended that the 
maximum dose to any individual from recycled material not exceed one 
millirem per year.
    Response. Although the proposed rule does not specifically address 
recycle, the NRC staff believes the radiological criteria in the 
proposed rule provide reasonable assurance that future inadvertent 
recycle of soils or structures following decommissioning of a site will 
not adversely affect public health. The analysis which supports the 
rule, although it does not specifically take recycle into account, is 
based on prudently conservative scenarios which tend to overestimate 
expected public doses.
    In cases where the licensee achieves residual radioactivity levels 
that are indistinguishable from background, the potential doses from 
inadvertent recycle are expected to be insignificant. In cases where 
the residual radioactivity cannot be reduced to the point that it is 
indistinguishable from background, the licensee will have to consider 
inadvertent recycle when conducting the ALARA analysis for the site. 
Therefore, steps can be taken on a site-specific basis to impose 
additional restrictions if inadvertent recycle appears to pose a 
significant potential problem at that site.
    The Commission plans to consider separately the issues of how to 
deal with cases where the licensee proposes to release material 
containing residual radioactivity intentionally for reuse or recycle 
either as a part of decommissioning or ongoing operations. In the 
interim the Commission will continue to be review these actions on a 
case-by-case basis.

Comments on the NRC Staff Draft

Overview of Comments

    There were 1685 comments from the 89 docketed letters received on 
the NRC staff draft. These comments were similar to those from the 
workshops with respect to the wide range of expressed views. Two 
subjects on which the commenters were in general agreement were (1) the 
appropriateness of the rulemaking process, and (2) the significance of 
not having the GEIS and the guidance documents available for review. 
The commenters strongly favor the enhanced participatory rulemaking 
process but said that the GEIS and the guidance documents are needed in 
order to understand the basis for the rule and how it would be 
implemented. The NRC staff considered these comments in the development 
of the proposed rule.

Summary and Discussion of Comments

1. Need for and Scope of Rule
    Comment. Commenters supported the NRC's efforts to develop 
radiological decommissioning standards. However, some questioned 
whether the NRC should defer to the EPA and suggested that the NRC 
await the EPA's efforts to develop these standards. Several commenters 
urged that the NRC reconsider and delete the exclusion of previously 
approved decommissioning plans from the new requirements. Others 
recommended retention of this exclusion and its expansion to cover 
decommissioning plans already in the final stages of NRC review and 
approval. A comment reported often was that the NRC should issue its 
proposed radiological criteria for final public review and comment only 
after the NRC has completed and issued the companion GEIS and other 
guidance documents needed to facilitate understanding of the proposed 
rulemaking.
    Response. With respect to the question of whether the NRC should 
let the EPA take the lead in developing radiological decommissioning 
standards, the NRC will have to proceed with rulemaking in any case. If 
EPA develops standards, the NRC will have to promulgate a regulation to 
implement the EPA standard. Therefore, it was jointly decided that 
parallel NRC/EPA efforts would be the best approach. The NRC has worked 
closely with the EPA and will continue to do so. As a result of this 
interactive cooperation, progress has been made that would have been 
unlikely otherwise. It is believed important that both agencies 
continue to work on this effort (see discussion under Item 4, 
Consistency and Compatibility). With respect to previously approved 
decommissioning plans, the Commission believes it is important to 
encourage licensees to take timely decommissioning actions. 
Accordingly, the Commission is retaining the exclusion of previously 
approved decommissioning plans in the new requirements and is expanding 
the provisions to include plans under final stages of NRC review. 
Regarding the need for public review of the GEIS and other guidance 
documents, the Commission fully agrees. The GEIS, a regulatory analysis 
(RA), and an NRC staff working draft regulatory guide will be issued 
concurrently with publication of the proposed rulemaking. The formal 
comment period for the rulemaking will commence with this Federal 
Register Notice. Further opportunity for enhanced public participation 
and comment will be provided in a workshop to be held during the latter 
part of the formal comment period for the proposed rule and the NRC 
staff draft regulatory guide. Notification of the workshop will be 
placed in the Federal Register and posted on the electronic board.
2. Radiological Criteria
    Comment. Comments were divided concerning whether NRC 
decommissioning standards should be based on the recommendations of 
recognized national and international bodies such as the ICRP and NCRP. 
Many citizen/environmental organizations continued to recommend that 
the NRC should require decontaminating to a level indistinguishable 
from background. They opposed setting any acceptable risk level or 
radiation dose for decommissioning because they believe that any 
incremental increase over background dose is unacceptable. Most 
industry and other commenters recommended that the decommissioning 
standard be based on technically supportable risk/dose criteria. Some 
commenters urged that the proposed level be decided only after 
analyzing the costs and benefits of alternative proposals.
    Many commenters objected to inclusion of a quantitative goal in the 
rulemaking because it could be interpreted by some as the standard that 
should be achieved in most cases. Other commenters agreed on inclusion 
of both a quantitative goal and a quantitative limit. Some want these 
to be lower than the levels specified--TEDEs of 3 mrem and 15 mrem per 
year. Many citizen/environmental organization commenters stated that, 
instead of specifying a numerical goal and a limit, the regulatory 
objective should be to reduce contamination to a level that is not 
distinguishable from background. Other commenters stated that doses in 
the range of 3 mrem to 15 mrem per year are indistinguishable from 
background. Most of these commenters recommended that the dose limit 
should be increased to a level between 25 and 100 mrem per year, or 
possibly higher. Reasons for recommending a higher dose limit included 
(1) the criteria should conform to recommendations of national and 
international scientific consensus organizations; (2) a cost-benefit 
analysis would support a higher limit; (3) the criteria should be based 
on scientific analyses and not based on intuitive feelings; (4) there 
are no practical means to demonstrate compliance with TEDEs of 3 and 15 
mrem per year; and (5) efforts to comply with such levels would waste 
large resources in remediating small risks with no real gain in 
benefits.
    Several commenters recommended that the goal be dropped from the 
rule. Some of these commenters suggested the goal instead be 
incorporated into the guidance that would accompany the rule. A 
principal concern was that the goal would become a de facto limit. In 
particular, the EPA, in presenting their comments on the goal, 
indicated concern over the perception that the specification of any 
value, such as 3 mrem/yr, would be construed as the actual requirement 
for the decommissioning. The EPA has verbally continued to express 
concerns regarding the NRC staff proposal of presenting acceptable 
staff positions for ALARA documentation in the Regulatory Guide.
    Some commenters requested that, because of possible failure of 
institutional controls, the NRC should not place a dose restriction of 
100 mrem per year on sites subject to restricted release. Commenters 
were divided on the requirement that licensees base their estimates of 
greatest TEDE dose on the first 1000 years. Some stated that this time 
is unrealistically long while others stated that it is unrealistically 
short.
    Several commenters compared the proposed limits of 15 mrem/y and 3 
mrem/y to risk limits/goals attributed to the EPA and suggested that 
these comparisons are complicated by differences in scenarios for 
exposure used by the EPA and the NRC, and by a basic difference between 
a limit and a goal. A limit must always be reached. A goal is not 
always reached.
    Commenters requested that the NRC include alternative radiological 
criteria for licensees who possess radioactive materials of a kind and 
form not requiring extensive decontamination at the time of 
decommissioning. They suggested that demonstration of compliance should 
be possible through direct radiation measurements and not require the 
use of modeling and consultants.
    Response. The following responses are provided.
    a. Appropriateness of 15 mrem/y TEDE.
    The Commission has considered the comments in light of information 
presented in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and the 
Regulatory Analysis (RA). These studies show that residual 
radioactivity can be reduced to levels which will result in an annual 
TEDE of 15 mrem without unreasonable effort or expense for most 
radionuclides and most facilities. A summary of this analysis can be 
found in Sections 5 through 7 of the GEIS and Sections 4 and 6 of the 
RA. In those few cases where reducing the residual radioactivity to the 
levels required to comply with the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit for 
unrestricted use are either not technically achievable, would be 
prohibitively expensive, or would result in net public or environmental 
harm, Sec. 20.1405 of the proposed rule provides the licensee with the 
option of requesting release of the site with restrictions placed on 
its use.
    Several commenters have argued that a 15 mrem/y limit for 
unrestricted release is not consistent with the recommendations of the 
ICRP and NCRP and that the limit should be raised to as high as 100 
mrem/y. The Commission believes that an additional margin of safety 
below 100 mrem/yr is necessary because the 100 mrem/y limit is intended 
to apply to doses to the public resulting from all radiation sources 
(NCRP Report No. 116, Section 15; ICRP Publication 60, Section 5.5). 
Therefore, allocation of the entire 100 mrem/y dose to residual 
radioactivity from the decommissioning of a single facility would be 
inappropriate. Using a safety margin to limit the dose from a single 
source to avoid a summation of exposures approaching the dose limit is 
consistent with the recommendations of both the ICRP and the NCRP.
    b. Removal of Goal from the NRC staff Draft Rule.
    As formulated in the NRC staff draft rule, the goal was designed to 
serve two principal objectives. First, and foremost, it would clearly 
articulate the NRC's objective for decommissioned sites. Second, it 
would establish a dose level well below the limit at which licensees 
who have little or no site contamination (e.g., licensees that use only 
sealed sources or short lived radioisotopes) would be relieved of much 
of the burden of analysis associated with the ALARA requirement.
    The NRC staff has reexamined the goal concept based on the comments 
received, and has concluded that having both a limit and a goal in the 
rule can lead to confusion concerning the Commission's intent. 
Therefore, in order to clarify the Commission's intent and to make it 
clear that 15 mrem/y TEDE is the only limit, the Commission has dropped 
the term ``goal'' from the rule. Instead the Commission has substituted 
the following:
    First, in order to clearly articulate the Commission's continued 
commitment to the objective for decommissioned sites, the following 
statement of objective has been included in Sec. 20.1402 of the 
proposed rule:

    The objective of decommissioning is to reduce the residual 
radioactivity in structures, materials, soils, groundwater, and 
other media at the site so that the concentration of each 
radionuclide that could contribute to residual radioactivity is 
indistinguishable from the background radiation concentration for 
that radionuclide. The Commission realizes that, as a practical 
matter, it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that such an 
objective has been met. Therefore, the Commission has established a 
site release limit and is requiring that licensees demonstrate that 
the residual radioactivity at a site is as far below this limit as 
reasonably achievable.

    Second, in order to provide administrative relief to licensees who 
have little or no site contamination, the Commission has revised 
Sec. 20.1404 of the rule to read as follows:
    A site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if:
    (a) the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from 
background radiation results in a TEDE to the average member of the 
critical group that does not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) per year; and
    (b) the residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are 
as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
    Depending on the site-specific ALARA analysis, any dose level less 
than or equal to 15 mrem/y may be considered ALARA. However, in many 
situations, licensees who have little or no site contamination should 
be able to readily achieve a dose level well below the limit. The NRC 
will provide guidance as to how such licensees can demonstrate 
compliance with Section 20.1404(b) without having to perform 
sophisticated analyses to demonstrate that residual radioactivity 
levels at their sites are ALARA. This should substantially reduce the 
administrative burden on licensees who have little or no site 
contamination (e.g., licensees that use only sealed sources or short 
lived radioisotopes). There are approximately 17,000 NRC and Agreement 
State licensees, many of which are small businesses, that are expected 
to benefit from this guidance without any compromise to public health 
and safety.
    c. Time Frame.
    For the reasons stated in the rationale for the proposed rule, the 
Commission believes the 1000 year time frame proposed by the NRC staff 
is reasonable for estimating annual doses from residual radioactivity 
from decommissioned sites.
    When predicting thousands of years into the future, uncertainties 
become very large because of major potential changes in the 
hydrogeologic regime at the site over these long periods of time. When 
the potential consequences of exposure to the radioactive source are 
great; e.g., as in the case of a high level waste repository, distant 
future calculations may provide some insight concerning the relative 
magnitude of consequences. However, the consequences of exposure to 
residual radioactivity at levels near background are small and 
considering the large uncertainties, long term modeling of near 
background doses may be virtually meaningless. Thus, the Commission 
does not believe it would serve any useful purpose to attempt to 
estimate radiation doses from residual radioactivity thousands of years 
into the future.
3. Individual vs Collective Doses
    Comment. Several commenters stated that collective dose should be 
used by the NRC to evaluate costs and benefits of alternative 
radiological criteria. The Department of Energy suggested that an ALARA 
analysis, based on collective dose and competing risks for certain 
sites with low population exposure, might indicate that the criteria 
proposed by the NRC may not be justifiable. Most commenters favored 
using dose to individuals to ensure protection of the public health. 
Many citizen/environmental groups disagreed with the proposal to limit 
individual dose to the ``average member of the Critical Group.'' They 
recommended that the goal and limit as described in the staff's draft 
rule be applied to the maximally exposed individual in the exposure 
group.
    Response. The Commission agrees with the commenters that collective 
dose should be used by the NRC to evaluate the costs and benefits of 
alternative radiological criteria. In fact, this has been incorporated 
in the assessment of the total risk for the respective alternatives in 
the GEIS and the RA. Although these documents were unavailable for 
review by the commenters, the technical analyses in the GEIS and the RA 
support the criteria in the proposed rule.
    The Commission considers the use of TEDE to the average member of 
the Critical Group to be a more useful concept for the purposes of 
decommissioning for the reasons discussed in the Rationale for the 
Proposed Rule. The discussion of ``Critical Group'' in the Rationale 
has been revised to make it clear that the critical group must be 
reasonably homogeneous. This clarifies that the licensee cannot average 
doses over a group whose members may be expected to get widely 
differing doses for the purpose of ``averaging down'' expected doses to 
highly exposed individuals.
4. Consistency and Compatibility
    Comment. As was the case at the earlier workshops, commenters urged 
that the NRC and the EPA work together to develop consistent standards. 
Conservation of Federal resources and avoidance of imposing different 
standards on regulated parties were considered to be important. 
However, the NRC was advised not to lower its risk limit simply to 
accommodate the EPA.
    The commenters recommended that the degree of consistency that the 
NRC will require between NRC standards and Agreement State standards be 
clearly stated. One commenter suggested that the Federal standard be 
set to ensure adequate protection of the public and that if a State or 
local community requires a licensee to decommission to a lower standard 
that does not provide a significant benefit, then the State or local 
community should fund this extra effort. Agreement State commenters 
requested that the statement of considerations for the proposed 
rulemaking discuss the extent to which they must implement specific 
provisions of the rule to maintain continued regulatory compatibility 
with NRC regulations.
    Response. In response to the comments concerning the relationship 
between NRC and EPA standards, NRC and EPA are developing 
decommissioning criteria in parallel rulemaking efforts. The NRC and 
EPA are coordinating their efforts in this area to ensure that 
effective and consistent site decommissioning standards are 
established, while minimizing duplication of effort. Accordingly, the 
EPA was an important participant in the NRC rulemaking workshops and is 
a cooperating agency in the preparation of the GEIS for the rulemaking. 
The NRC has also consulted extensively with EPA throughout the 
rulemaking process. The objective is that EPA will be able to make a 
finding that NRC decommissioning criteria provide adequate protection 
for the public and the environment and will exclude NRC licensees from 
the EPA cleanup standards.
    In response to the question of NRC/Agreement State compatibility, 
the Commission is developing a new policy on Agreement State 
compatibility which will be issued for public comment in the near 
future. Because the compatibility determination for this proposed rule 
will be considered in light of the new compatibility policy, the 
Commission believes it would be premature to propose a compatibility 
determination at this time. However, to facilitate ultimate resolution 
of the compatibility determination for this rule, if adopted as a final 
rule, the Commission is requesting comments on whether, to what extent, 
and under what circumstances, an Agreement State should be authorized 
to establish more stringent requirements than those set forth in this 
proposed rule.
5. Finality
    Comment. Finality of decommissioning was a major issue among 
commenters. Various commenters stated (1) that revisiting sites should 
be based on new site-specific information and not on new evaluation 
methods and (2) that the criteria for revisiting sites are too 
subjective and require clarification or refinement.
    Response. The Commission agrees that the wording in the NRC staff 
draft was ambiguous. Therefore, Sec. 20.1401(c) has been revised to 
make it clear that the Commission would require additional cleanup only 
if, based on new information, it determined that residual radioactivity 
remaining at the site could result in significant public risk.
6. Community Involvement
    Comment. The NRC staff draft specified that the Commission will 
inform the public of each receipt of a decommissioning plan from a 
licensee and of each proposal for restricted release of a site. In 
addition, it specified that licensees who propose to release sites 
under stipulated conditions of restricted release must convene a Site-
Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) for purpose of providing advice to the 
licensee.
    Several industry commenters questioned the need for these 
additional requirements on the grounds that:
    (1) Present procedures for public participation in licensing 
procedures are adequate and provide an appropriate way to deal with the 
concerns of those affected by decommissioning;
    (2) There is no demonstrated need; and
    (3) The provisions of SSABs would put managerial, regulatory, and 
financial matters of licensees in the hands of people who have no 
responsibility for the consequences of their recommendations.
    Most other commenters supported the proposed new community 
involvement proposals and some commenters additionally urged the NRC to 
require establishment of an SSAB for all decommissioning cases, 
including sites suitable for unrestricted release. Others recommended 
that an SSAB should be used in cases involving Native American lands, 
sites surrounded by high density residential uses, ocean or waterfront 
sites, or sensitive ecosystems unless the three (3) millirem per year 
decommissioning goal would be met.
    Additional comments on the use of SSABs included:
    (1) The rulemaking should delimit SSAB roles and responsibilities;
    (2) Guidelines are needed with respect to SSAB staffing and 
activities;
    (3) SSABs should not report to licensees or be funded by licensees 
because this could compromise their effective use;
    (4) Membership should be restricted to ``citizen, environmental, 
environmental justice, and other public interest groups'' who reside in 
the local community; and
    (5) The membership should include a representative of the site to 
which wastes are expected to be sent.
    Response. With respect to the need for additional community 
involvement, the Commission believes that the noticing requirements and 
the requirements to establish and use SSABs should be implemented as 
proposed in the NRC staff draft. The proposed termination of licenses 
and release of sites under conditions of restricted release involve 
issues (e.g., land restrictions) which could have unanticipated adverse 
effects on the local community. The Commission wants to be sure it has 
considered the views of affected members of the local community on 
these issues before making a decision on the licensee's request. These 
proposed provisions will provide an effective means to inform the 
affected licensees, local and state governments, and the NRC of these 
views. However, the Commission believes that an extension of the SSAB 
requirement to apply to cases involving unrestricted release is 
unnecessary and would impose an undue burden with little or no public 
benefit on a large number of licensees, many of which are small 
businesses.
    With respect to delimiting the role and responsibilities of SSABs 
and providing guidance on SSAB staffing and activities, the Commission 
specifically requests further comment on these issues. After gaining 
experience with the formation and use of SSABs, it might be appropriate 
to reconsider the need for this guidance at a later date. Regarding the 
funding and control of SSABs, the Commission believes that licensees 
should provide the necessary funding as proposed. The proposed rule 
contains safeguards to ensure that the SSABs are not subject to 
licensee control. The licensee would be required to provide reasonable 
opportunity for all local affected parties to be represented on the 
SSAB. Meetings of the SSAB must be open to the public. The licensee 
must provide adequate public notice of the location, time, date, and 
agenda for the meetings at least two weeks in advance of each meeting. 
All records generated or reviewed by the SSAB become part of the 
licensing docket and will be available for public inspection.
    With respect to restriction of the SSAB membership to the local 
community, the intent of the provisions in Sec. 20.1407(c) is such a 
restriction. Regarding the proposal to expand memberships of the SSAB 
to include a representative of the designated offsite disposal site, 
the Commission believes that the offsite disposal site is not relevant 
for consideration by the SSAB, because siting of the waste disposal 
facility involves a separate public process that, in part, recognizes 
that wastes will be transported to the waste facility.
7. Stability and Flexibility
    Comment. Most of those who commented on stability or flexibility 
provided in the draft rule said that a generic standard should be 
written to provide enough flexibility to account for actual risks 
associated with conditions peculiar to specific sites in protecting the 
public and the environment, and to select appropriate site-specific 
remediation methods. Some commenters said that the imposition of strict 
generic standards without flexibility might not provide an optimum 
protection strategy across the range of categories of licensees. Other 
commenters noted that the adequacy of flexibility provided under the 
draft proposed rule cannot be decided without the necessary guidance 
documents.
    Response. The Commission also recognizes the need for flexibility 
in applying these criteria because of constraints posed by site-
specific conditions (e.g., geology, hydrology, meteorology, and 
radiation background levels) and to provide opportunity for meaningful 
participation by local communities in individual decommissioning 
actions. Therefore, the proposed rule provides for site-specific 
implementation of the generic criteria. The Commission is publishing 
the NRC staff's working draft regulatory guidance along with the 
proposed rule which describes methods for site-specific implementation 
of the criteria. This working draft guidance includes conduct of site 
characterization and surveys, specific radionuclide concentration and 
surface activities that would be considered by the NRC staff to meet 
the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit, and modeling acceptable to the staff to 
develop more site-specific values of concentration or surface activity 
based upon the factors unique to the activity being decommissioned.
8. ALARA Considerations
    Comment. Comments on the ALARA concept were much the same as 
provided at the earlier workshops. Most public/environmental 
organization commenters stated that they do not trust licensees to make 
ALARA determinations. Industry and other commenters stated that they 
support the NRC's permitting them to make ALARA determinations and 
urged the NRC to continue to permit licensees to use site specific 
factors in making these determinations.
    Response. The Commission believes that ALARA is a fundamental 
concept of radiation protection and is an important part of its 
decommissioning criteria. NRC guidance being issued in support of the 
rulemaking provides for the use of site-specific factors in deciding 
what levels should be achieved below the stipulated radiological limit. 
This guidance will be described in NUREG-1500 ``Working Draft 
Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for Decommissioning; Staff Draft 
for Comment.''
9. Demonstrating Compliance
    Comment. Many submitting written comments urged the NRC to complete 
its guidance on acceptable methodologies criteria as soon as possible 
and to publish this guidance for comment before the rulemaking is 
issued for final public comment. Many commenters questioned the 
technical ability to demonstrate compliance with the proposed dose 
goals or limits in the staff's draft, or questioned the technical 
justification for such requirements, or said that there are no 
standards for demonstrations of compliance. Several others said that 
demonstrating compliance to the proposed dose goals or limits is 
impractical and will unnecessarily increase costs and volumes of low-
level wastes generated during decommissioning.
    Many commenters said that there must be practical or objective 
guidance for demonstrating compliance. Some said that this guidance 
should be issued for review before the rule is promulgated. Some 
commenters raised questions on who makes the final decisions on 
demonstrating of compliance and by what means.
    Some commenters suggested that simplified guidance (not requiring 
the use of modeling or consultants) should be provided for designated 
licensees who have only low levels of contamination or ``uncomplicated 
situations'' in their operations. Some commenters said that the public 
might more easily understand demonstration of compliance if alternative 
limits to the ones proposed were used. Several commenters said that 
compliance should be demonstrated by actual measurements and not just 
by modeling. Some commenters also suggested specific methodologies for 
demonstrating compliance.
    Response. The capabilities for demonstrating compliance are 
considered in the GEIS and the RA which provide the technical basis for 
the radiological criteria in the rule. Guidance that is being issued 
for public comment in conjunction with the publication of the proposed 
rule will cover acceptable methods for demonstrating compliance, the 
use of simplified methods or practical derived measurements and 
measurements units, and verification by practical measurement 
techniques not necessarily requiring modeling.
    In response to the question concerning who makes the final 
decisions on whether the licensee has demonstrated compliance with the 
rule, the NRC or, as appropriate, the Agreement State will make this 
determination. Where necessary the NRC or Agreement State will conduct 
independent confirmatory surveys to ensure that the appropriate 
criteria have been met.
10. Sites That Cannot Be Released for Unrestricted Use
    Comment. Many public/environmental organization commenters stated 
that licensees should not be permitted to walk away from a contaminated 
site and that contamination should be removed to the extent that 
radioactive materials and radiation are indistinguishable from 
background. Many voiced opposition to any release of sites under 
restricted use conditions. This opposition was based largely on concern 
about the long term effectiveness of institutional controls to ensure 
compliance with the conditions for restricted release.
    Other commenters generally endorsed both the unrestricted and 
restricted release of sites. With respect to restricted release of 
sites, commenters:
    (1) Stated that the NRC should better define the circumstances 
which could qualify a site for restricted release;
    (2) Recommended that the NRC give examples of acceptable 
institutional controls for providing reasonable assurance that 
specified dose limits are not exceeded; and
    (3) Requested that the NRC publish guidance on determination of 
necessary financial assurance for proper control and maintenance of a 
site.
    Some commenters recommended that the NRC adopt a dose level below 
100 mrem per year as the upper dose limit in the event of failure of 
the applied institutional controls. Still other commenters stated that 
the 100 mrem per year restriction could foreclose onsite disposal of 
wastes as presently permitted at uranium mill tailings sites and that 
this restriction should be deleted. Several commenters requested that 
the NRC better address the issue of consolidation and long-term care of 
wastes at sites not suitable for restricted release.
    One commenter said that engineered disposal cells might be the best 
solution for sites with large quantities of slightly contaminated 
soils, while another said that large volumes of slightly contaminated 
soil with a few ``hot spots'' should be regarded as homogeneously 
contaminated.
    Response. The NRC believes that the rule should provide for both 
unrestricted release and for restricted release of sites. Additionally, 
there may be sites that will have to continue under license. The NRC is 
issuing guidance, first in draft form for comment, on how it expects to 
implement the provision for restricted release.
    The 100  mrem/y restriction is designed to establish an upper bound 
on the risk in the unlikely event of failure of institutional controls 
or restrictions at the site. This restriction is also designed to 
ensure that license termination under restricted conditions does not 
result in a proliferation of de facto disposal sites. The Commission 
believes that 100 mrem/y is an adequately conservative upper bound. 
This dose corresponds to the maximum annual dose during the first 1000 
years following decommissioning. In many cases, the peak dose occurs 
during the first year following decommissioning. For these cases, the 
predicted dose levels will be reduced by radioactive decay so that if 
institutional controls or restrictions at the site were to fail some 
time in the future the actual public dose would be substantially below 
100 mrem/y in most cases. In cases where buildup of radioactive 
daughter products or other conditions cause the peak dose to fall other 
than in the first year after decommissioning, the predicted dose levels 
are significantly below 100 mrem/y for the large majority of the first 
1000 years after decommissioning.
    The issue of an appropriate value for the dose in the unlikely 
event of failure of institutional controls has been a key point of the 
ongoing discussions between the EPA and the NRC. As noted in section 
entitled ``Rationale for the Proposed Rule'' of this Statement of 
Considerations, the Commission is specifically soliciting comment on 
the appropriateness of this value, and the impacts associated with the 
selection of other values such as 75 mrem/yr.
    Disposal of tailings and soil cleanup at milling sites is regulated 
under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). 
The impact of the dose limit on unique practices at uranium mill 
tailings sites may require case-by-case consideration in the interest 
of consistency with current regulation of tailings under UMTRCA.
11. Waste Disposal
    Comment. A commenter stated that waste disposal issues must be 
discussed in the EIS. Some commenters stated that the criteria do not 
seem to recognize and should more adequately consider the non-linear 
increase in waste volumes at low concentrations of radioactive 
materials.
    Several commenters stated that the NRC should consider allowing for 
some decommissioning under restricted conditions with on-site 
emplacement, storage, and monitoring of radioactive wastes. Several 
commenters stated that previously-buried wastes should be cleaned up at 
the time of decommissioning consistent with the generic cleanup 
standard. Several others disagreed, saying that it is ``unfair'' or 
unnecessary to include these previously-buried wastes.
    Agreement State commenters were concerned over the adequacy of the 
space at regional disposal facilities for the large amount of material 
to be generated from the decommissioned sites. The concern was enforced 
by the lack of a GEIS to review and assertion that data used in the EIS 
for 10 CFR Part 61 is over 10 years old.
    Response. Waste disposal issues, including matters of the 
relationships between waste volumes and cleanup levels, are discussed 
in the GEIS. The Commission maintains its position that public and 
environmental risk is an overriding factor that requires the 
consideration of the removal of previously-buried wastes as a part of 
decommissioning. Even though a previous burial was carried out within 
the regulatory requirements at an operating site, the potential 
differences in conditions between the site as operated and as 
decommissioned require such consideration. The requirements for 
previously-buried wastes are consistent with the Commission's 
established regulatory practice for decommissioning under the Site 
Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP). The proposed rule requires an 
analysis of site-specific overall risks, costs, and benefits in 
deciding, for individual sites, whether or not the exhumation and 
removal of previously-buried wastes is required.
12. Minimizing Generation of Waste
    Comment. The NRC staff draft contained a section on minimization of 
contamination. Most commenters supported the concept of minimization of 
contamination, but several industry commenters preferred not to include 
the proposed provisions in the rulemaking on radiological criteria for 
decommissioning. Industry commenters stated that these concepts do not 
need to be put in regulations because waste minimization and hence, 
minimization of contamination, is commonplace in the nuclear industry 
and is driven by such economic incentives as reduction of disposal 
costs. Some commenters recommended that the NRC publish guidelines for 
public comment on the actions that licensees are expected to take in 
minimizing the production or release of contamination, and that the NRC 
should similarly publish for public comment the criteria it will use to 
determine if licensee proposals are acceptable.
    Response. The Commission agrees that existing ALARA programs and 
the cost of radioactive waste disposal provide sufficient incentive to 
minimize radioactive waste. Therefore, requiring licensees to redesign 
existing facilities or amend already approved radiation protection 
procedures is unnecessary and would not result in any substantial 
improvement in public safety. Therefore, Sec. 20.1408 (b) and (c) have 
been deleted from the proposed rule. However, the Commission believes 
that there may be substantial potential to reduce contamination, 
facilitate eventual decommissioning, and minimize generation of 
radioactive waste if special consideration is given to these issues 
when designing new facilities. Therefore, Sec. 20.1408(a) has been 
retained.
13. Radon
    Comment. Those submitting written comments mostly agreed with not 
establishing a separate standard for radon. Commenters noted, however, 
that sites contaminated with radon-bearing-or-producing materials may 
have great difficulty meeting the proposed dose goal and limit in the 
staff's draft.
    Response. The Commission believes that a separate standard for 
radon is not needed and that NRC guidance being issued in support of 
the rulemaking will provide licensees with sufficient information 
concerning measurement problems that are associated with background 
radon. Additional comments are invited with respect to the problem of 
determining compliance with the NRC's radiological criteria at sites 
contaminated with processed radon-bearing-or-producing materials.
14. Recycle
    Comment. One commenter said that all ``radioactivity'' from 
licensed use should be contained and not recycled. Another said that 
recycling should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
    Response. The Commission believes the radiological criteria for 
recycling is outside the intended scope of this rule but will be 
addressed in a future rule. In the interim, the Commission will 
continue to review this action on a case-by-case basis.
15. Comments Related to Definitions
    Comment. There were a number of questions concerning definition of 
terms used in the draft rule. There were also several suggestions for 
additions, deletions, or revisions to existing definitions in the draft 
rule, and there were some suggested new definitions. Questions were 
raised concerning the use of terms such as, ``affected parties,'' 
``significant,'' ``average member,'' ``cumulative TEDE,'' 
``decommissioning goal,'' ``unrestricted use,'' and ``net public or 
environmental harm.''
    Some commenters objected to including fallout in the definition of 
background radiation. Others agreed with the proposed definition or 
proposed various additions, revisions, or deletions to the definition, 
e.g., to change the wording starting with the current words ``global 
fallout'' to ``global fallout from the testing of nuclear explosive 
devices or from past nuclear accidents.''
    Several commenters said that the term ``residual radioactivity'' 
needs clarification with respect to materials discharged from the site 
in accordance with other provisions of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 
20.
    Response. The practical implication of these terms and others in 
the proposed rule have been clarified in the guidance which accompanies 
the proposed rule.
    With regard to ``background radiation,'' the new definition is the 
same as the existing definition except for the addition of the words 
``or from past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl which contribute to 
background radiation and are not under the control of the licensee'' 
after ``explosive devices'' in order to explicitly recognize that 
radioactivity from past nuclear accidents contributes to background 
radiation. Because the remaining wording has been adequate in the past, 
the Commission sees no reason to further revise the definition at this 
time.
    The Commission agrees that the proposed definition of ``residual 
radioactivity'' in Sec. 20.1003 was not clear with respect to materials 
discharged at the site in accordance with other provisions of 10 CFR 
Part 20. The definition has been revised to clarify the Commission's 
intent.

Rationale for the Proposed Rule

Conceptual Basis

    The overall conceptual basis for decommissioning, as proposed in 
this rulemaking, consists of an objective to reduce the residual 
radioactivity at the site so that it is indistinguishable from the 
background, a limit on the dose considered acceptable for release of a 
site with a stipulation that dose be as far below this limit as 
reasonably achievable (i.e., ALARA), provisions in regulatory guidance 
for administrative relief from performing sophisticated ALARA analyses 
for licensees who have little or no site contamination, provisions for 
restricted termination of a license when physical remediation 
activities cannot achieve the limit, and enhanced provisions for public 
participation.
    The limit for release of a site is 15 mrem/y (0.15 mSv/y) TEDE for 
residual radioactivity distinguishable from background. If doses from 
residual radioactivity are less than 15 mrem/y TEDE, the Commission 
will terminate the license and authorize release of the site for 
unrestricted use following the licensee's demonstration that the 
residual radioactivity at the site is ALARA.
    The Commission expects the licensee to make every reasonable effort 
to reduce residual radioactivity to levels that will allow unrestricted 
release of the site. However, the Commission will consider terminating 
a license in cases where restrictions must be imposed on the use of the 
site to ensure that public doses are maintained below the 15 mrem/y 
(0.15 mSv/y) TEDE limit, provided the licensee:
    (1) Can demonstrate that further reductions in residual 
radioactivity necessary to comply with the 15  mrem/y TEDE limit for 
unrestricted use are not technically achievable, would be prohibitively 
expensive, or would result in net public or environmental harm;
    (2) Has made adequate provisions for institutional controls to 
reduce annual TEDE from residual radioactivity distinguishable from 
background to the average member of the appropriate critical group to 
15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE;
    (3) Has provided sufficient financial assurance to enable an 
independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for 
any necessary control and maintenance of the site; and
    (4) Has reduced the residual radioactivity at the site so that the 
TEDE from residual radioactivity would not exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) per 
year even if the restrictions applied in the termination were no longer 
effective in limiting the possible scenarios or pathways of exposure.
    The Commission estimates that there may be several existing 
licensed sites (no more than a few tens) containing large quantities of 
materials contaminated with low level radioactivity where health and 
environment may best be protected by onsite stabilization and disposal. 
The contamination was generated over the last several decades using 
practices that generally would not be found satisfactory today without 
adequate plans and financial assurance for decommissioning. In some 
cases, a responsible public or private entity may no longer exist or be 
viable for discharging its responsibility for ensuring protection of 
the public and the environment. In other cases, the contamination may 
have been generated through research or development contracts with the 
Federal government or given special consideration in Federal law. Due 
to the unique characteristics of these sites when compared with the 
much larger population of licensed nuclear facilities, the Commission 
contemplates that the owners and operators of these facilities may seek 
exemptions from the decommissioning criteria under the general 
provisions in 10 CFR 20.2301.
    Such sites, and the considerations associated with them, are not 
unlike disposal sites for uranium mill tailings, and may need to be 
provided with equivalent types of controls to ensure sufficient 
protection. At a minimum, the Commission would require that the public 
health and environmental protection requirements developed for these 
unique cases be consistent with other appropriate regulatory 
requirements for disposal of radioactive waste, including those in 10 
CFR Part 61 ``Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive 
Waste'' or 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A ``Criteria Relating to the 
Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes 
Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from 
Ores Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content.''
    Any Commission decision on such exemption requests and the 
disposition of these sites would be made on the basis of a 
comprehensive analysis of the risks and benefits of all viable 
alternatives including remediation of the site to meet the criteria in 
this rule. Proper disposition of these sites may require some type of 
durable institutional control, such as placing the site under the 
custody of a State or Federal agency, to ensure long-term protection of 
the public and environment. For example, for a former licensed site in 
West Virginia, the final disposition included action by Congress that 
provided for transfer of the site to Federal custody and ongoing DOE 
oversight. Such an analysis would have to consider all significant 
risks to humans and the environment resulting from the decommissioning 
process (including transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes 
generated in the process) and from residual radioactivity remaining at 
the site following termination of the license. The Commission 
specifically solicits comments on this approach to the handling of 
these unique cases, including proposals for alternative strategies 
which could be used to assure adequate protection of public health and 
the environment.
    The Commission envisions that the scope of the exemption request 
would be limited to the radiological criteria for unrestricted or 
restricted release. Due to the unique nature of these sites and the 
comprehensive evaluation necessary to support such an exemption 
request, the Commission would require that a meaningful and substantial 
process be used by the licensee or the NRC itself for informing and 
involving the public in the decision. Consequently, the Commission 
would not favorably entertain exemption requests unless they were 
developed through a process consistent with the public involvement 
processes required in this rule.
    For any process conducted by the NRC, the Commission would solicit 
participation from: the Environmental Protection Agency; local and 
State governments; persons residing in the vicinity of the site; 
citizen, environmental, environmental justice, and other public 
interest groups; Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have 
treaty or statutory rights that could be affected; and other affected 
parties. For example, in reviewing proposed decommissioning actions at 
two licensed sites in Ohio and New Jersey, the Commission has initiated 
development of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for both sites 
and recently held public meetings on the scope of the EISs with the 
intent to fully explore the alternatives and potential impacts 
associated with the disposal of the contaminated material. As a part of 
this process, NRC is working closely with EPA, State, local 
representatives, and members of the public to develop acceptable 
alternatives. The site-specific process applied at these sites by the 
NRC is attempting to include participation by all affected parties to 
assure continued protection of public health and safety through a 
viable and effective decommissioning approach.
    Although the Commission recognizes there may be existing sites 
where public health and the environment may best be protected by onsite 
stabilization and disposal, the Commission does not believe that future 
activities should result in additional sites that would not be able to 
meet the criteria in this rule. Therefore, the Commission is proposing 
to add a new Sec. 20.1408 to its regulations which would require that 
applicants for licenses, other than renewals, describe in the 
application how facility design and procedures for operation will 
minimize contamination of the facility and the environment, facilitate 
eventual decommissioning, and minimize the generation of radioactive 
waste.

Definitions

    The following definitions already present in the regulations would 
be revised:
    The definition of Background Radiation (10 CFR 20.1003) would be 
revised so that fallout from past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl 
which contribute to background radiation and are not under the control 
of the licensee are included in the definition. The Commission does not 
believe it is reasonable for licensees to be required to remediate 
material over which they have no control and which is present at 
comparable levels in the environment both on and off of the site.
    The definition of Decommission would be revised to also provide for 
termination of a license and release of property under restricted 
conditions. This revision was requested by a large number of commenters 
at the workshops on decommissioning. Those commenters felt that the NRC 
should recognize that it may not be feasible to decontaminate some 
sites to a level appropriate for unrestricted use and that restrictions 
on the subsequent use of such sites could be used to provide an 
additional measure of public protection.
    The following new definitions would be added:
    The Critical Group would be defined as the group of individuals 
reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual 
radioactivity given the circumstances under which the analysis would be 
carried out. For example, if the site were to be released for 
unrestricted use the Critical Group would be the group of individuals 
reasonably expected to be the most highly exposed considering all 
reasonable potential future uses of the site. This would include 
renovation of structures, water use, and industrial, residential, and 
agricultural uses of the land and structures. If the site were to be 
released with restrictions, the licensee would have to assess both the 
dose to the average member of the group of individuals reasonably 
expected to be the most highly exposed assuming that the proposed 
restrictions were successfully imposed and adhered to (the ``Critical 
Group'' appropriate to this set of circumstances) and the dose to the 
average member of the group of individuals reasonably expected to be 
the most highly exposed if the proposed restrictions were to fail (in 
essence the ``Critical Group'' for unrestricted termination of the 
license).
    The Critical Group, for purposes of screening dose calculations, is 
defined for each scenario described in NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 1. In each 
scenario, the Critical Group is an individual or relatively homogeneous 
group of individuals expected to receive the highest exposure within 
the assumptions of the particular scenario. The average member of the 
Critical Group is that individual who is assumed to represent the most 
likely exposure situation based on prudently conservative exposure 
assumptions and parameter values within the model calculations. For 
example, the Critical Group for the building occupancy scenario is the 
group of workers occupying a building that has been decontaminated. The 
average member of that group is assumed to spend 2000 hours per year 
working in the building and is exposed to residual contamination via 
the external, inhalation, and inadvertent ingestion pathways. A more 
detailed discussion of acceptable methods for selecting the critical 
group and estimating the dose to the average member of the group can be 
found in Section III.G. of the draft regulatory guide.
    This is a departure from the requirement in Sec. 20.1302 where, for 
licensed activities, the licensee is required to assess the dose to 
``the individual likely to receive the highest dose.'' However, in 
contrast to licensed facilities where public doses normally result from 
activities that are carefully prescribed and controlled, the public 
doses from residual radioactivity at decommissioned sites may result 
from a variety of activities for which the maximally exposed individual 
is much more difficult to precisely define. Furthermore, in ongoing 
operations licensed by the Commission, it is possible to update or keep 
track of who might be likely to receive the highest exposure. In 
decommissioning, there will be no ongoing mechanism that would allow 
for adjustments of imposition of additional controls. Therefore, the 
Commission believes it is more prudent to use the average member of the 
critical group for assessing TEDE from residual radioactivity after the 
license is terminated because this provides a reasonably conservative 
estimate of public risk without attempting to speculate on which 
specific individual may be expected to receive the highest dose.
    The practice of defining and using a Critical Group when assessing 
individual public dose from low levels of radioactivity similar to 
those expected from a decommissioned site is proposed in Section 5.5.1 
of the 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on 
Radiological Protection (ICRP 60) and has been adopted in the current 
draft of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Draft Federal 
Radiation Protection Guidance for Exposure of the General Public. For 
the purpose of this Subpart, the licensee would be required to estimate 
the dose to the average member of the critical group from residual 
radioactivity remaining at the site.
    Indistinguishable from background would mean that the detectable 
concentration of the radionuclide is not statistically different from 
the background concentration of that radionuclide in the vicinity of 
the site, or in the case of structures, in similar materials using 
adequate measurement technology, survey methodology, and statistical 
techniques.
    Readily removable would refer to residual radioactivity, as defined 
below, which is removable using non-destructive, common, housekeeping 
techniques (e.g., washing with detergent and water) that do not 
generate large volumes of radioactive waste requiring subsequent 
disposal. This would not include techniques that produce chemical 
wastes that are expected to adversely affect public health or the 
environment. Readily removable would also not refer to residual 
contamination dispersed in soil under conditions where removal of the 
residual radioactivity could only be accomplished by moving large 
volumes of soil.
    Residual Radioactivity would include radioactivity in structures, 
materials, soils, groundwater, and other media at the site resulting 
from licensed activities at the site. This would include radioactivity 
from all licensed and unlicensed sources used by the licensee but would 
exclude background radiation. This term should not be confused with the 
term ``residual radioactive material'' which appears in 10 CFR 40.4.
    Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) would be a committee 
constituted by the licensee to provide advice to the licensee on 
decommissioning.

Scope

    The proposed rule would apply to the decommissioning of all 
facilities licensed by the Commission except for facilities or portions 
thereof (e.g., waste disposal sites and uranium mill tailings) that are 
already specifically covered in the regulations. It provides for both 
unrestricted and restricted release of sites. The proposed rule would 
not apply to sites already covered by a Commission approved 
decommissioning plan if the plan was approved before the effective date 
of the rule. This provision is designed to encourage licensees to 
continue with ongoing and planned decommissioning.
    After a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated in 
accordance with the criteria in this proposed rule, the Commission 
would require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it 
determines that residual radioactivity remaining at the site could 
result in significant public or environmental harm.
    The Commission recognizes there may be existing sites containing 
large quantities of materials contaminated with low level radioactivity 
where public health and the environment may best be protected by onsite 
stabilization and disposal with proper restriction of the site to 
prevent human disruption of the site and exposure to the radioactive 
contamination. There are precedents for these cases in the 
stabilization of uranium mill tailings under the Uranium Mill Tailings 
Remediation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) and the DOE Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). In these cases, some type of 
durable institutional control, such as placing the site under the 
custody of a State or Federal agency, may be necessary to ensure long-
term protection of the public and the environment. However, 
consideration of these actions would require extensive site-specific 
safety and environmental analyses. In addition, input from affected 
parties in the vicinity of the site would be desirable to determine 
whether there are other local impacts that must be considered in 
determining the best course of action and to ensure the long-term 
effectiveness of the institutional controls. For these reasons, the 
Commission has determined that these actions fall outside the scope of 
this rulemaking in the sense that there may be site-specific 
determinations using criteria other than those proposed in this 
rulemaking. If, in the future, general criteria to evaluate these 
actions can be developed, the Commission will consider additional 
rulemaking to establish the criteria for general application.
    The proposed rule would also require that all new applicants for 
licenses, other than renewals, describe in the application how facility 
design and procedures for operation will minimize contamination of the 
facility and the environment, facilitate eventual decommissioning, and 
minimize the generation of radioactive waste.

Radiological Criteria

    The proposed rule would establish a dose limit for release of a 
decommissioned site of 15 millirem per year (mrem/y) TEDE for residual 
radioactivity distinguishable from background. The 15 mrem/y TEDE dose 
limit was selected to provide both a substantial margin of safety below 
the NRC's dose limit for members of the public and an appropriate limit 
for the acceptability of release of a facility which would no longer be 
subject to regulatory control.
    The estimated lifetime risk associated with an annual TEDE of 15 
mrem/y is approximately 4E-4. This estimate was arrived at by using a 
risk coefficient of 4E-4 per rem and assuming an exposure lifetime of 
70 years. The 4E-4 risk factor is roughly equivalent to the 3.92E-4 
risk factor in Table 6.6 of the EPA NESHAPS Background Information 
Document (EPA89). Use of this value is consistent with the 
calculational methods of the Environmental Protection Agency which is 
also promulgating regulations in this area. The 70-year exposure 
lifetime provides a conservative estimate of lifetime exposure. The 
Environmental Protection Agency is using a 30-year lifetime exposure in 
estimating lifetime risk from residual radioactivity at decommissioned 
sites. This is based on the assumption that it is unlikely that an 
individual will continue to live or work in the same area for more than 
30 years. Using a 30-year exposure lifetime the estimated lifetime risk 
associated with an annual TEDE of 15 mrem/y would be approximately 2E-
4. A more detailed discussion of estimating lifetime risk can be found 
in appendix B of the GEIS.
    In selecting this limit, the NRC staff took into account 
recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP and those criteria promulgated by 
EPA and NRC which provide acceptance criteria for areas where 
unrestricted access in the vicinity of facilities is permitted, such as 
generally applicable environmental standards established by EPA and the 
criteria used for remediation of contaminated sites under the Superfund 
(CERCLA) program. The dose value of 15 mrem/y TEDE is generally 
consistent with the risks implied by those criteria and with the 
remediations which have been achieved.
    Several commenters have argued that a 15 mrem/y limit for 
unrestricted release is not consistent with the recommendations of the 
ICRP and NCRP and that the limit should be raised to as high as 100 
mrem/y. The Commission believes that an additional margin of safety 
below 100 mrem/yr is necessary because the 100 mrem/y limit is intended 
to apply to doses to the public resulting from all radiation sources 
(NCRP Report No. 116, Section 15; ICRP Publication 60, Section 5.5). 
Therefore, allocation of the entire 100 mrem/y dose to residual 
radioactivity from the decommissioning of a single facility would be 
inappropriate. Using a safety margin to limit the dose from a single 
source to avoid a summation of exposures approaching the dose limit is 
consistent with the recommendations of both the ICRP and the NCRP.
    In addition, the cost/benefit impact analysis in the GEIS (Chapters 
5 and 6 and Figures 7-1 through 7-11) indicate that costs of achieving 
a 15 mrem/yr limit would not be unduly burdensome on licensees. In 
those few cases where remediation to achieve 15 mrem/yr may present an 
unreasonable burden, release of the site with restrictions placed on 
its use provides an alternative means for achieving this level of 
protection.
    The proposed rule would also require that the licensee reduce any 
residual radioactivity to as close to indistinguishable from background 
as reasonably achievable. ALARA considerations are to include all 
significant risks to humans and the environment resulting from the 
decommissioning process, and licensees are to demonstrate why further 
reductions below the limit are not reasonably achievable. Depending on 
the site-specific ALARA analysis, any dose level less than or equal to 
15 mrem/y may be considered ALARA.
    However, in many situations, licensees who have little or no site 
contamination should be able to readily achieve a dose level well below 
the limit. The NRC will provide guidance as to how such licensees can 
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 20.1404(a)(ii) without having to 
perform sophisticated analyses to demonstrate that residual 
radioactivity levels at their sites are ALARA. This should 
substantially reduce the administrative burden on licensees who have 
little or no site contamination (e.g., licensees that use only sealed 
sources or short lived radioisotopes). There are approximately 17,000 
NRC and Agreement State licensees, many of which are small businesses, 
that are expected to benefit from this guidance without any compromise 
to public health and safety.
    The Commission recognizes that demonstrating that radionuclide 
levels at a site are indistinguishable from background is a complex 
task involving sophisticated sampling, measuring, and statistical 
analysis techniques. The difficulty of the task can vary substantially 
depending on a number of factors including the radionuclide in 
question, the background level for that and other radionuclides at the 
site, and the temporal and spatial variations in background radiation 
at the site. Therefore, in order to assist the licensee in making these 
determinations, the Commission will publish specific guidance on 
acceptable methods which can be used by the licensee to demonstrate 
that the concentrations of specific isotopes at the site are 
indistinguishable from background. The Commission will also publish 
guidance on acceptable methods for estimating annual TEDE to the 
average member of the Critical Group. This guidance will include a 
discussion of the type of scenarios and exposure pathways which should 
be considered, and computer models for estimating the annual TEDE to 
the average member of the critical group. The computer models will be 
screening models that employ generically derived conservative 
assumptions and factors. However, licensees will be able to substitute 
assumptions and factors more appropriate to a particular site if they 
can demonstrate that these factors and assumptions reasonably reflect 
the existing and projected conditions at the site. Licensees may also 
use other models or methods for estimating TEDE, provided they can 
demonstrate to the Commission that these models or methods provide 
reasonable estimates for the site to be decommissioned. This guidance 
is described in NUREG-1500 ``Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release 
Criteria for Decommissioning; Staff Draft for Comment.'' The Commission 
requests comment on the appropriateness of the approach and the 
methodology described in NUREG-1500.
    As can be seen from Figures 7-1 through 7-11 of the GEIS, it 
appears reasonable to expect that a number of licensees will be able to 
remediate their sites to dose levels below the 15 mrem/yr limit at 
reasonable cost. However, these same analyses indicate that in most 
cases there are large incremental costs associated with reductions 
below 3 mrem/yr, and that the incremental costs are due primarily to 
the cost of demonstrating compliance rather than the cost of additional 
remediation. Therefore, when attempting to achieve doses below 3 mrem/
y, costs can increase substantially with little or no additional 
reduction in risk to public health or the environment. Section 7-5 of 
the GEIS also indicates that levels of residual radioactivity which 
produces a dose of 3 mrem/yr are generally difficult to distinguish 
from natural background because they are comparable to local variations 
in background radiation and substantially smaller than national 
variations in background radiation. As a result, the staff draft 
regulatory guide (NUREG-1500) proposes that, in order to minimize the 
burden of documentation and analysis in such cases, the Commission 
would consider documentation that the TEDE to the average member of the 
critical group from all radionuclides distinguishable from background 
does not exceed 3 mrem/y as sufficient for demonstrating compliance 
with the ALARA requirement. The Commission invites comment on this 
provision in the guide.
    The proposed rule would broaden the definition of decommissioning 
to include release for restricted use in addition to release for 
unrestricted use. The underlying approach for restricted release is 
that the risk for a member of the public should be limited to 
acceptable levels, irrespective of whether that individual is exposed 
during the conduct of some occupation or in residential or recreational 
activities. Thus, the conditions for restricted release are premised on 
restricting the use of the site so that average individual doses do not 
exceed the 15 mrem/yr dose limit. While the circumstances of the 
exposure (i.e., the duration or pathway) may thus be varied, the 
underlying risk limit remains respected for any critical group of 
individuals.
    Licensees unable to meet the requirements for unrestricted use 
would be allowed to request permission to release sites for restricted 
use with subsequent termination of the license if they can demonstrate 
that the following conditions have been met:
    (1) Further reductions in residual radioactivity are not 
technically achievable, the cost of achieving further reductions would 
be prohibitively expensive, or further reductions would directly 
produce environmental or public harm that is clearly excessive compared 
to the health or environmental benefits achieved through these 
reductions now or in the future.
    The Commission has proposed this provision as the fundamental basis 
for determining when a restricted termination of a license will be 
appropriate. Technical achievability, prohibitive expenses, and 
excessive environmental or public harm are the three areas in which the 
Commission believes that alternative considerations should be examined 
as part of the overall process of determining the most appropriate 
action for a site. Clearly, if remediation is simply not possible given 
the technological capabilities in existence at the time of 
decommissioning, some other types of alternatives must be appropriate.
    In terms of excessive costs, the Commission recognizes that there 
may be situations where removal and disposal of large quantities of 
material is simply not reasonable from a cost standpoint. An example of 
this type of situation that has already been addressed is the disposal 
of mill tailings, where a separate set of standards has been developed, 
including provisions for institutional control. The third condition, 
excessive environmental or public harm, has been included in 
recognition that although remediations may be technically possible and 
within the overall resources of society, the net damage, through 
removal and disposal of materials, alteration of ecosystems, or 
displacement of populations, could be too great to not be undertaken. 
Considerations of this nature are best determined through public 
participation, which is provided through provisions for a Site-Specific 
Advisory Board.
    The third condition also provides for the possibility that the net 
environmental impact of completely remediating a site and then 
constructing an entirely new site to perform a similar activity may be 
inappropriate. An example of this could be the continued use of a site 
for electrical power generation, where a number of existing facilities, 
such as the turbine and electrical distribution system could be used 
with a different energy source. This approach would need to be examined 
on a case-by-case basis, and a determination made regarding the 
appropriateness of remediating the site for unrestricted use vs some 
type of restricted use in order to conserve environmental resources.
    (2) There are adequate provisions for institutional and/or other 
passive controls to provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE from 
residual radioactivity to the average member of the critical group will 
not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) per year. Institutional controls would 
have to be enforceable by a responsible Government entity or in a court 
of law in response to suits by affected parties.
    This provision specifies the fundamental dose limit for 
considerations of restricted termination. The core requirement is that 
an individual should not be exposed to a greater level of risk than 
that established for unrestricted use releases. Thus, the application 
of restrictions must be able to reduce the average dose to the 
appropriate critical group to the same 15 mrem/year value used as the 
limit for unrestricted use. However, in the restricted use situation, 
the critical group will be different from the critical group that would 
need to be considered in the unrestricted situation. For example, a 
restriction might be imposed that would prevent residential 
applications or agricultural uses of the facility. These restrictions 
would mean that critical group would have different exposure 
characteristics (e.g., 8 hours per day while working in a building) and 
thus, a larger quantity of radioactivity could be allowed to remain 
onsite for the same dose.
    (3) There is sufficient financial assurance to enable an 
independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for 
any necessary control and maintenance of the site. Acceptable financial 
assurance mechanisms will include:
    (i) Prepayment as described Sec. 30.35(f)(1);
    (ii) Surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method as 
described in Sec. 30.35(f)(2); or
    (iii) Statement of intent in the case of Federal, State, or local 
government licensees, as described in Sec. 30.35(f)(4).
    This provision has been included to assure that mechanisms have 
been established as necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness of 
the controls that may be used to meet the dose limit. The ongoing 
effectiveness of the restrictions will not necessarily be the 
responsibility of the former licensee but could be vested in other 
organizations, local governments, etc., which would continue cognizance 
of the action. This responsibility could include periodic monitoring, 
overviews of site access restrictions, or other activities that might 
be necessary to support the proposed controls. Under this provision, 
the amount of financial assurance that would be needed will be 
determined on a site-specific basis, taking into account the proposed 
restrictions, and the recommendations of the Site-Specific Advisory 
Board.
    (4) Residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced so that if 
the site were released for unrestricted use, the TEDE from residual 
radioactivity to the average member of the critical group is as low as 
reasonably achievable and would not reasonably be expected to exceed 
100 mrem (1 mSv) per year. This limit coincides with the NRC dose limit 
for public exposure in 10 CFR Part 20.
    This final condition is premised on the assumption that 
circumstances could develop under which the restrictions, such as land 
use or deed restrictions, might no longer be effective in limiting the 
exposure scenarios. If, for example, a restriction against residential 
or agricultural use were no longer effective in preventing those uses 
of the land, then the assumptions about the exposure of the critical 
group would no longer be valid. While this is not assumed to occur for 
planning purposes, the Commission believes it is appropriate to have a 
``safety net'' to prevent exposures in excess of the public dose 
limits.
    The development of this provision also has the effect of requiring 
that some remediation be conducted at the site, rather than simply 
allowing a licensee to develop a series of restrictions. The Commission 
believes it appropriate that basic measures be taken to reduce the risk 
and dose that could result from a site and that the public dose limits 
form the minimum acceptable level of protection that should be provided 
in the unlikely event that restrictions are not effective in reducing 
the magnitude and scenarios of exposure.
    The Commission specifically solicits public comment on the adequacy 
of the 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year value as the ``safety net'' to prevent 
exposures in excess of the public dose limits in the event that all 
site restrictions fail. The recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP, as 
well as Draft Federal Guidance being developed by the EPA, suggest 
constraining the dose to members of the public from any single source 
to less than 100 mrem/y as a way to ensure that the total public dose 
from all sources does not exceed 100 mrem/y. The Commission has 
followed this principle in establishing the dose limit for 
decommissioning. However, in the case of the ``safety net'', the 
Commission does not believe that fractionation would be necessary for 
the following reasons:
    (1) The 100 mrem/y cap, although being equivalent to the dose limit 
for members of the public, represents a small fraction of the 500 mrem/
y dose that the Draft Federal Guidance suggests is acceptable for 
members of the public in unusual circumstances. The Commission believes 
that failure of all site restrictions at decommissioned sites is a 
highly unlikely event.
    (2) The 100 mrem/y value applies to the peak dose during the first 
1000 years. For most radioisotopes, this peak dose occurs in the first 
year and diminishes over time due to radioactive decay. This decay 
provides an additional margin of safety which is equivalent to an a 
priori fractionation of the limit.
    (3) The 100 mrem/y value is less than the value selected for 
controlling intruder scenarios for other types of facilities where some 
type on institutional control (e.g. government ownership) is 
contemplated.
    However, the Commission is soliciting suggestions for alternatives 
to the proposed safety net, including the use of some fraction of 100 
mrem/y (e.g., 75 mrem/y) as the safety net. The Commission is 
particularly interested in the relative merits of selecting a fraction 
of the routine public dose limit in light of the required conservatism 
in the calculation of the dose, and the rationale for selecting some 
particular fraction. The Commission is also soliciting comments on the 
relative benefits and impacts of the Commission's proposed safety net 
and proposed options, including comments on the number of facilities 
that could be impacted by selection of alternative values.
    The Commission recognizes there may be unusual circumstances in 
which the licensee may wish to seek an exemption from one or more of 
the provisions of this subpart. For example, the licensee may feel it 
is unnecessary to clean up a site to the requirements for unrestricted 
release because the site is contained within a larger area where use 
will be restricted for the foreseeable future. The Commission believes 
these rare circumstances can adequately be handled under existing 
provisions in Sec. 20.2301 which provides opportunity for the licensee 
to request an exemption from any of the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20.
    The Commission also recognizes there may be special environmental 
or cultural issues associated with a particular decommissioning action 
which would require more stringent implementation of the requirements 
in this subpart. For example, there may be social or cultural issues 
that have to be considered because the site is on or contiguous to 
historical sites or Native American lands which contain religious or 
sacred areas. However, the Commission believes these issues can best be 
handled on a site-by-site basis as part of the licensing process and, 
in most cases, would be taken into consideration when establishing 
ALARA residual radioactivity levels for a site. The Commission does not 
believe that further reductions in dose would be necessary to meet 
social or cultural issues if the limit for unrestricted use is achieved 
and ALARA has been applied. Where necessary, the provisions for public 
comment and for a Site-Specific Advisory Board will provide a mechanism 
for local citizens and other affected parties to be directly involved 
in addressing these issues.

Public Participation in the Decommissioning Process

    The Commission 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 will provide for public participation in 
the decommissioning process through three mechanisms in addition to the 
relevant NRC requirements regarding hearing opportunities for a 
particular site.
    Upon the receipt of a decommissioning plan from the licensee, or a 
proposal by the licensee for restricted release of a site pursuant to 
Sec. 20.1405, or whenever the Commission deems such notice to be in the 
public interest, the Commission shall:
    (1) Notify and solicit comments from 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.
    These provisions are designed to provide affected individuals and 
organizations with both information about the proposed decommissioning 
and an opportunity to provide comments on the licensee's proposal. The 
Commission believes it is particularly important to provide notice in a 
forum that is accessible to local individuals. This forum may vary from 
site to site but would usually include providing notice to local media 
for publication.
    For decommissioning where the licensee does not propose to meet the 
conditions for unrestricted release, the proposed rule would require 
that the licensee convene a Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) as 
described in Sec. 20.1407 for the purpose of obtaining advice from 
affected parties regarding the proposed decommissioning. The purpose of 
the SSAB would be to provide recommendations to the licensee on:
    (1) Whether there are ways to reduce residual radioactivity to a 
level necessary to comply with the provisions of Sec. 20.1404 which are 
technically achievable, would not be prohibitively expensive, and would 
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; and
    (c) Impose undue burdens on the local community or other affected 
parties.
    (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 areas in which the SSAB would be expected to provide 
recommendations parallel the areas that a licensee must address as part 
of its proposal for a restricted termination of license. The intent of 
the provision is to provide a mechanism for early public involvement in 
the development of the decommissioning plan for the site. To the extent 
that local public involvement may be vital to the successful 
implementation of land use restrictions, involvement of representatives 
of local government, affected citizens, Native Americans, and other 
interested parties in the Site-Specific Advisory Board is important to 
the long-term effectiveness of the decommissioning action. In order for 
the participation to be most effective, it should come during the 
development of the plan, rather than as comment after the licensee has 
spent significant resources to develop its proposal. Hence, the 
recommendations of the SSAB are to be included in the decommissioning 
plan along with the licensee's disposition of those recommendations. It 
is important to note that the opportunity for comment provisions would 
still be applicable even when a SSAB had been used in the development 
of the decommissioning plan.

Site-Specific Advisory Board

    The SSAB has been patterned after the recommendations contained in 
the Interim Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration 
Dialog Committee (FFERDC) entitled ``Recommendations For Improving the 
Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Decision-Making and 
Priority Setting Processes, February 1993,'' which is a consensus 
document developed by over 40 members of a committee chartered by the 
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The diverse members of the 
FFERDC represented Federal, Tribal, State, environmental, labor, and 
citizen interests. It is designed to respond to the desire expressed by 
many workshop commenters that local affected parties have early and 
substantive input into the decommissioning process on a site-specific 
basis. The SSAB would supplement and not supplant existing NRC 
procedures that provide for public input into the regulatory process. 
The Commission believes that increasing the opportunity for early 
public involvement in the decommissioning process is an effective way 
to provide an information exchange and to ensure credible and 
defensible licensing decisions, especially when the long-term 
effectiveness of the land use restrictions may depend on community 
knowledge and involvement in their development and application. The 
Commission would emphasize that the operation of the SSAB is not 
intended to usurp the traditional land use authority of the local or 
State government. In fact, many of the institutional controls that may 
be recommended by an SSAB to ensure the restricted use of a site will 
depend on the exercise of this traditional authority by the local or 
State government.
    Licensee notification to the Commission of intent to decommission 
in accordance with Secs. 30.36(b), 40.42(b), 50.82(a), 70.38(b) or 
72.54 would have to specify whether the licensee intends to reduce 
residual radioactivity at the site to levels which would allow the site 
to be released for unrestricted use. If not, the licensee would be 
required to submit a plan for establishing and supporting an SSAB with 
the notification.
    The licensee would be responsible for establishing the SSAB and 
developing appropriate ground rules and operating procedures for the 
SSAB with the advice of the SSAB. The SSAB would consist of about 10 
members plus an ex officio representative from the Commission. This 
number of members is expected to allow for adequate representation of 
affected parties without allowing the group to become so large that it 
cannot perform its function effectively. The licensee would be required 
to provide adequate administrative support for SSAB activities and 
provide the SSAB access to studies and analyses pertinent to the 
proposed decommissioning.
    Membership of the SSAB, to the extent that representatives are 
willing to participate, would have to:
    (1) Reflect the fullest practical range of interests in the 
affected community and region and be composed primarily 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 public interest 
groups; and Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have treaty 
of statutory rights that could be affected.
    Meetings of the SSAB would be open to the public. The licensee 
would be required to provide adequate public notice of the location, 
time, date, and agenda for the meetings at least 2 weeks in advance of 
each meeting. All records generated or reviewed by the SSAB would 
become part of the decommissioning docket, and would be available for 
public inspection.
    In most cases it is expected that the work of the SSAB would be 
completed after it had formally submitted its advice to the licensee. 
However, there may be some cases (e.g., where the licensee's plan is 
substantially altered following NRC review) in which the SSAB may have 
a continuing role in providing advice to the licensee. In any case, it 
is anticipated that the SSAB would be dissolved after the license has 
been terminated.
    The Commission is seeking comment on whether there are situations 
where it might be inappropriate or infeasible to establish an SSAB 
under conditions set forth in Sec. 20.1406(b). For example, are there 
situations where establishment of an SSAB would be inconsistent with 
other governmental regulations and statutes, or are there circumstances 
in which local government officials may not be allowed to participate 
in privately funded advisory groups. If so, what alternatives would be 
available to satisfy the objectives of public participation and input? 
Should criteria be incorporated in the regulation for granting 
exemptions to the requirements of Sec. 20.1406(b) for good cause. If 
so, what criteria might be appropriate?
    The Commission is also seeking comment on what the content of 
descriptive information on membership, size, operating procedures, 
administrative support, and distribution of agendas should include, and 
whether this information should be included in the rule or in a 
regulatory guide or other document.

General Provisions

Readily Removable Residual Radioactivity

    It is clear that some structures can easily be decontaminated to 
levels well below those necessary to reduce individual doses from 
residual radioactivity at a decommissioned site to a few mrem TEDE/y 
above background. Past decommissioning practice has been based on the 
premise that ``the licensee should make a reasonable effort to 
eliminate residual radioactivity.'' See Regulatory Guide 1.86, 
``Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors,'' June 1974, 
pg. 3. Some previously released structures have been decontaminated to 
levels below those specified in Regulatory Guide 1.86 for some 
nuclides. Therefore, the Commission proposes to require that all 
readily removable residual radioactivity be removed from a site before 
it is decommissioned. This is considered a necessary and reasonable 
step toward ensuring that doses to the public from residual 
radioactivity are ALARA. For the purpose of this proposed regulation, 
the Commission has defined readily removable to mean removable using 
non-destructive, common, housekeeping techniques (e.g., washing with 
moderate amounts of detergent and water) that do not generate large 
volumes of radioactive waste requiring subsequent disposal. This would 
not include techniques that produce chemical wastes that are expected 
to adversely affect public health or the environment. It would also not 
include removal and transport of soil except when small discreet areas 
of contamination can be removed by digging up a few shovelfuls of soil.
    The intent of these proposed provisions is to define the basic 
types of remediation that should be undertaken as a matter of good 
practice regardless of whether the site meets the NRC residual 
radioactivity criteria. However, it is not the Commission's intent to 
require more substantive remediation without the benefit of careful 
planning and ALARA considerations. The Commission specifically solicits 
comments on how to best define the activities that should be included 
under this provision.

Radioactive Materials Previously Disposed of at the Site

    Under NRC regulations, licensees may dispose of radioactive wastes 
on their own property. Before 1981, NRC regulations (10 CFR 20.304) 
allowed disposal without prior approval of limited quantities of 
specified nuclides under prescribed conditions. On July 28, 1981, 
Sec. 20.304 was revoked because the Commission did not have sufficient 
assurance that these disposals would be adequately protective. However, 
onsite disposal can still be undertaken by individual licensees under 
10 CFR 20.2002 (previously Sec. 20.302), provided the disposal is 
specifically approved by the NRC or an Agreement State. If this buried 
radioactive material is considered to be part of the licensee's total 
site inventory for decommissioning purposes, some licensees will likely 
be required to remove all or part of this material before 
decommissioning the site. This position may be controversial because it 
can be argued that materials already disposed of in accordance with 
existing NRC requirements should no longer be considered part of the 
licensees inventory of radioactive material. Nevertheless, removal of 
the previous burials may be necessary to achieve the proposed 
radiological criteria and ensure sufficient protection of the public 
and environment.
    In this proposed rulemaking, the Commission takes the position that 
public and environmental risk is the overriding factor. Therefore all 
residual radioactivity at the site, including that previously disposed 
of in accordance with NRC requirements in Secs. 20.304, 20.302, and 
20.2002 must be included in determining whether the licensee meets the 
radiological criteria in the proposed rule. However, the Commission is 
aware that the balancing of risks, costs, and benefits may be 
substantially different for exhuming buried material than they would be 
for decontamination of surface soils and structures. Therefore, it is 
expected that before any decision is made to exhume radioactive 
material previously disposed of at a site, the licensee will perform a 
site-specific analysis of the overall risks, costs, and benefits of 
this action.
    This position is consistent with positions already taken by the NRC 
on this issue. In the Supplementary Information to the Final Rule 
``General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities'' 
(published on June 27, 1988, 53 FR 24021), the Commission states it 
will ``take a hard look at the extent to which the site has been used 
to dispose of low level radioactive wastes by land burial, and will 
decide what remedial measures including removal of such wastes offsite, 
are appropriate before the site can be released for unrestricted use.'' 
In the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) the NRC staff notes 
that ``disposals performed under 10 CFR 20.304 have at several sites 
required exhumation during the decommissioning and takes the position 
that acceptability of these burials will be assessed in future 
decommissioning procedures.'' See SECY-91-096, Enclosure 1 ``Site 
Decommissioning Management Program, Revision 1 (January 1991)'' p. 16. 
See also, the draft Regulatory Guide on ``Standard Format and Content 
for Decommissioning Plans for Nuclear Reactors,'' which states that the 
licensee's plan should indicate the extent of waste burial onsite and 
the remedial measures appropriate before the site can be released for 
unrestricted use.

Use of Actual Measurements

    Although the Commission recognizes that it will be necessary in 
many cases for the licensee to use modeling to estimate the TEDE to the 
average member of the critical group from residual radioactivity at the 
site, the proposed rule would require that estimates of the site 
specific source term (i.e., residual radioactivity remaining at the 
site) be substantiated using actual measurements to the maximum extent 
practical. The reason for this substantiation of estimates is that 
using actual measurements reduces the uncertainty associated with the 
estimates and provides a greater measure of assurance that radiological 
requirements are being met. It is expected that substantiation would be 
carried out in accordance with the survey requirements in 10 CFR 
20.1501. Information and guidance related to surveys and use of 
measurement techniques have been published in draft form for public 
comment as NUREG/CR-5849. An NRC staff working draft regulatory guide 
is being published with this proposed rulemaking which specifically 
addresses these topics. The Commission plans to publish further 
guidance in draft form before the effective date of the final rule.

Time Frame

    There is some difference of opinion on how far into the future 
calculations should be carried out for the purpose of establishing 
acceptable residual radioactivity levels for decommissioned sites. 
Current NRC staff practice is to calculate projected doses out to 1,000 
years in the future in evaluating radiological impacts associated with 
residual radioactivity. This is consistent with current DOE practice. 
See, Order DOE 5400.5 ``Radiation Protection of the Public and 
Environment.'' EPA's high level waste regulations require that 
cumulative releases to the environment be calculated out to 10,000 
years. See, 40 CFR part 191 (Note: 40 CFR part 191 was remanded by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in July 1987, and is being 
reconsidered by EPA.) However, there are some who think such 
calculations should be carried out to provide estimates of potential 
contamination of groundwater for tens or even hundreds of thousands of 
years into the future.
    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. In light of this, 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.
    Although theoretical maximum doses for a few isotopic decay chains 
do not occur for hundreds or thousands of years, for most radionuclides 
of interest in decommissioning the peak dose occurs in less than 1,000 
years. Therefore, the Commission proposes to require that TEDE 
estimates be based on the greatest annual dose expected within the 
first 1000 years after decommissioning. This annual dose must be 
interpreted as the TEDE delivered in that year, including the committed 
dose equivalent from radionuclides taken into the body during that 
year. The Commission notes that a time frame of 1,000 years is also 
being considered by the EPA, as indicated in the draft regulatory 
language, discussed during the NACEPT Meeting in May 1994.

Risk Considerations in ALARA Calculations

    A number of commenters at the workshops on decommissioning stated 
that all risks should be taken into account when setting requirements 
for decommissioning a site. A principal concern was that the 
Commission, in an attempt to reduce residual radioactivity levels at a 
site, would establish cleanup requirements which could result in an 
overall risk increase, or in risk transference, rather than risk 
reduction. For example, in an attempt to clean up a site for 
decommissioning, the licensee may increase risk to persons along 
transportation routes and at the site where the material is finally 
disposed by transporting large volumes of debris from the site. In 
addition, disposal of large quantities of low-level radioactive debris 
at licensed low-level waste disposal sites could deplete the capacity 
of existing sites and ultimately result in a proliferation of licensed 
disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste.
    The Commission, recognizing the validity of these concerns, 
proposes to require that the licensee, when determining ALARA, consider 
all significant radiation doses and risks resulting from residual 
radioactivity and the decommissioning process itself, including 
transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes generated in the 
process. This analysis would be part of the decommissioning plan and 
would be available for comment by interested parties under the public 
participation provisions described earlier in this notice.
    In order to ensure compatibility with EPA groundwater standards, 
the proposed rule requires licensees to remediate their sites so there 
is a reasonable expectation that residual radioactivity from the site 
will not cause the level of radioactivity in any groundwater that is a 
current or potential source of drinking water to exceed the limits 
specified in 40 CFR Part 141 as they exist on the effective date of 
this regulation.

Groundwater Protection

    Section 20.1404(d) of the proposed rule would require that 
licensees demonstrate a reasonable expectation that residual 
radioactivity from a decommissioned site will not cause the level of 
radioactivity in any groundwater that is a current or potential source 
of drinking water to exceed the limits specified in 40 CFR Part 141. 
This provision is in addition to the overall radiological criterion for 
unrestricted release in 10 CFR 20.1404(a)(i) that 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.
    The Commission is soliciting comments on the proposed groundwater 
protection requirement. In particular, the Commission solicits comments 
on the following:
    1. Is a separate standard needed for groundwater when the overall 
radiological criterion of 15 mrem applies to all pathways,
    2. Given that natural background is included in 40 CFR 141, and 
given that for pathways of exposure covered by this rule, background is 
excluded, what alternatives exist for reconciling this difference in 
approach?
    3. Is it appropriate to apply a drinking water standard (``at the 
tap'') to groundwater in all cases.

Minimization of Contamination

    Many commenters at the workshops on decommissioning expressed the 
opinion that the Commission should be placing more emphasis on ensuring 
that licensed facilities are designed and operated in a way that would 
minimize the amount of radioactive contamination generated at the site 
during its operating lifetime. The Commission is sympathetic with this 
view. Therefore, the Commission proposes to require that applicants for 
licenses, except for renewals, describe in their applications 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. This 
provision is a prospective requirement for new licensees to examine 
contamination and waste minimization early in the process of facility 
design and license approval.
    The Commission considers that under existing regulations it is 
reasonable to expect new licensees, other than renewals, to provide for 
ease of decommissioning and minimization of waste when designing and 
operating facilities. However, given past experience, the Commission 
believes that this new requirement is necessary to focus applicant's 
attention on the type of facility design and good housekeeping 
practices needed to minimize the types of problems the Commission has 
had to face with problem sites like those addressed in the Commission's 
Site Decommissioning Management Plan (NUREG-1444, October 1993).

Timeliness

    The Commission does not want to create a situation where time 
requirements for completing decommissioning would make it difficult or 
impossible for licensees to safely and properly remediate large, 
complex, or otherwise difficult to decommission facilities. Therefore, 
the Commission is requesting comments on whether the criteria contained 
in this proposed rule can be met within the time frames that were 
specified in the final rule on ``Timeliness in Decommissioning of 
Materials Facilities.''
    In particular, the Commission is soliciting comments on whether 
licensees that anticipate having to establish an SSAB should be 
exempted from the generic timeliness requirements. If so, what 
alternative provisions could be made to assure timely decommissioning 
of the site? For example, could licensees be required to provide site-
specific decommissioning schedules during the earliest stages of 
decommissioning, or during preparation for decommissioning, e.g., in 
the decommissioning plan.

Relationship Between the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and 
Site-Specific Decommissioning Actions

    The Generic Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the 
Commission on this rulemaking evaluates the environmental impacts 
associated with the remediation of several types of NRC-licensed 
facilities to residual radioactivity levels ranging from 100 mrem/yr 
TEDE down to 0 mrem TEDE (background). The Commission believes that the 
generic analysis will encompass the impacts that will occur in any 
Commission decision to decommission an individual site. Therefore, the 
Commission plans to rely on the GEIS to satisfy its obligations under 
the National Environmental Policy Act in regard to individual 
decommissioning decisions that meet the 15 mrem/yr criterion for 
unrestricted use. However, the Commission will still initiate a 
preliminary environmental review in regard to any particular site to 
determine if the generic analysis encompasses the range of 
environmental impacts at that particular site.
    The proposed rule would also provide for the termination of the 
license and the release of a site under restricted conditions if the 
licensee can demonstrate that the use of land use restrictions or other 
types of institutional controls will provide reasonable assurance that 
the 15 mrem/yr limit can be met. The types of controls and their 
contribution to providing reasonable assurance that the 15 mrem/yr 
limit can be met for a particular site will differ for each site in 
this category. Therefore, the environmental impacts cannot be analyzed 
on a generic basis and the Commission will conduct an independent 
environmental review for each site-specific decommissioning decision 
where land use restrictions or institutional controls are relied on by 
the licensee.
    The GEIS indicates that the decommissioning of certain classes of 
licensees (e.g., licensees using only sealed sources) will not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. Therefore, for these categories of licensees, the 
Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 51.22 of the Commission's 
regulations to specify that the decommissioning of these types of 
licenses are actions eligible for categorical exclusion from the 
Commission's environmental review process.

Use of Land Use Restrictions or Other Types of Institutional Controls 
To Allow Termination of the License and Release of the Site Under 
Restricted Conditions

    Although the Commission anticipates that most licenses can be 
terminated for unrestricted use, the Commission also anticipates that 
there may be situations where the site radiological criteria can only 
be met through the use of land use or other types of institutional 
controls which will restrict the site to specific uses. For example, 
there may be some sites where unrestricted use for agricultural 
purposes or residential uses would cause the proposed criteria to be 
exceeded. However, restricting the same site to industrial or 
commercial uses would enable the site to meet the 15 mrem/y TEDE dose 
limit because the exposure pathways would be limited. The licensee, 
with the advice of the Site Specific Advisory Board, would propose 
certain types of land use or institutional controls in the 
decommissioning plan submitted for Commission approval, to provide 
reasonable assurance that the site would be limited to the types of 
uses that would enable the proposed criteria to be met.
    Examples of these controls include traditional zoning controls to 
restrict the use of the site to specific uses, the imposition of deed 
restrictions such as restrictive covenants or equitable servitudes to 
restrict the land to certain uses, negative easements where the 
licensee-landowner agrees to restrict the use of the land to specified 
uses, licensee agreements to restrict the use of certain portions of 
the land (for example, restricting access to a particular building), or 
even some type of government ownership of the property. Whatever type 
of controls are proposed by the licensee, the licensee must demonstrate 
that the controls proposed have a reasonable expectation of 
enforcement. A decommissioning plan that is dependent on land use or 
institutional controls whose enforcement are speculative would not be 
approved.

Implementation

    The Commission recognizes that demonstrating that radioisotope 
levels at a site are indistinguishable from background may be a complex 
task involving sophisticated sampling, measuring, and statistical 
analysis techniques. The difficulty of the task can vary substantially 
depending on a number of factors that include the radionuclide in 
question, the background level for that and other radionuclides at the 
site, and the temporal and spatial variations in background radiation 
at the site. Therefore, in order to assist the licensee in making these 
determinations, the Commission will publish specific guidance on 
acceptable methods which can be used by the licensee to demonstrate 
that the concentrations of specific radionuclides at the site are 
indistinguishable from background. The Commission will also publish 
specific guidance on acceptable methods for estimating annual TEDE to 
the average member of the Critical Group. This guidance will include a 
discussion of the type of scenarios and exposure pathways which should 
be considered, and computer models for estimating the annual TEDE to 
the average member of the critical group. The computer models will 
include screening models which employ generically derived conservative 
assumptions and factors.
    However, licensees will be able to substitute assumptions and 
factors more appropriate to a particular site if they can demonstrate 
that these factors and assumptions reasonably reflect the conditions at 
the site. Licensees may also use other models or methods for estimating 
TEDE provided they can demonstrate to the Commission that these models 
or methods provide reasonable estimates for the site to be 
decommissioned. When using modeling to estimate doses from 
radioactivity remaining at the site, the licensee will be able to use 
site specific parameters wherever practical. In the absence of site-
specific information, the licensee must use parameters which provide a 
sufficient margin of safety that the Commission can make a finding that 
there is reasonable assurance the TEDE criteria in this part will be 
met.
    An NRC staff working draft regulatory guide will be published 
simultaneously with the proposed rule as NUREG-1500, ``Working Draft 
Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for Decommissioning: NRC Staff's 
Draft for Comment.'' This publication allows licensees and interested 
members of the public to provide early comment during the developmental 
process. The draft regulatory guide has no official regulatory 
standing. The NRC staff anticipates that the draft regulatory guide 
will be published with the final rule and will incorporate public 
comments and the results of continued technical development activities. 
The draft regulatory guide published with the final rule will be for 
interim use and comment to fulfill the rule requirements and test 
implementation options. The final regulatory guide will be published 
approximately 1 to 2 years after publication of the final rule and 
would take into consideration comments on the draft guide as well as 
information regarding experience in implementing the draft guidance.
    The draft regulatory guide provides guidance on methods that are 
acceptable to the NRC staff for determining the predicted dose level 
(PDL) from any residual contamination remaining at a facility, that 
should be compared to the numerical dose criteria specified in the 
regulation. It describes the basic features of the calculational models 
and the associated default assumptions and parameter values that the 
NRC staff would find acceptable in calculating PDLs. Appendices to the 
guide provide numerical values that are used to estimate the dose from 
various residual radioactivity levels remaining at a facility. Also 
included are the considerations inherent in the ALARA process for 
decommissioning. Because the proposed 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, 
introduces several new concepts, a regulatory position concepts section 
containing definitions and discussions is included to assist licensees 
in understanding some of the philosophy underlying the rule. The 
regulatory position concepts section is followed by the regulatory 
position procedures section that describes actions the licensee can 
take to implement the requirements of the decommissioning rule.
    The Commission has also issued the following supporting documents 
to provide guidance on implementation of the residual contamination 
criteria in the proposed rule:
    (1) ``Guidance Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in 
Support of License Termination'' (NUREG/CR-5849), and
    (2) Technical Basis Document, ``Residual Radioactive Contamination 
from Decommissioning: Technical Basis for Translating Contamination 
Levels to Annual TEDE'' (NUREG/CR-5512).
    The Guidance Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys is intended 
to provide licensees with specific guidance on planning, conducting, 
and documenting site surveys which could be used to demonstrate that 
the site has been decontaminated to a level consistent with the 
Commission's criteria. The Technical Basis Document would provide an 
acceptable method for translating residual radioactivity levels 
(measurable quantities) to doses to individuals. Generic dose rate 
conversion factors are being developed for screening. In addition, the 
technical basis is expected to include a computer model which can be 
used for conducting a screening scenario/pathway analyses with site-
specific parameters so that site-specific dose rate conversion factors 
can be calculated. The NRC anticipates that in most cases these dose 
rate conversion factors could be used to determine compliance with 
criteria resulting from the rulemaking action.
    The NRC staff is continuing to work with the EPA and the DOE in the 
development of coordinated Federal Agency guidance on site surveys. The 
Commission anticipates endorsing such guidance for use in demonstrating 
compliance with the requirements of this rulemaking when it becomes 
available.

Agreement State Compatibility

    The Commission currently is developing a new policy on Agreement 
State compatibility which will be issued for public comment in the near 
future. The compatibility determination for the radiological criteria 
for decommissioning will be considered in regard to the implementation 
of the new compatibility policy. Therefore, the Commission believes 
that it would be premature to make a proposed compatibility 
determination on the radiological criteria for decommissioning at this 
time. However, for the purpose of facilitating the ultimate resolution 
of the compatibility determination for the radiological criteria for 
decommissioning, the Commission welcomes any comments on this issue. In 
particular, the Commission invites comments on to what extent and under 
what circumstances should an Agreement State be authorized to establish 
more stringent requirements than those set forth in NRC radiological 
criteria for decommissioning.

Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement: Availability

    As required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 
51, the NRC has prepared a draft generic environmental impact statement 
(NUREG-1496) on this proposed rule. For informational purposes and ease 
of distribution, Appendix A of the draft generic environmental impact 
statement has been published as a separate report, ``Background as a 
Residual Radioactivity Criterion for Decommissioning: Appendix A of the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Radiological 
Criteria for Rulemaking on Decommissioning'' NUREG-1501.
    The draft generic environmental impact statement is available for 
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower 
Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the draft generic 
environmental impact statement (NUREG-1496) or Appendix A of the draft 
generic environmental impact statement (NUREG-1501) 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.
    Background documents on the rulemaking, including the text of the 
proposed rule, the Draft GEIS, Appendix A of the Draft GEIS, the 
Regulatory Analysis, and the staff's working draft Regulatory Guide are 
also available for downloading and viewing on the NRC Enhanced 
Participatory Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning 
Electronic Bulletin Board, 1-800-880-6091. (See 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. 
The communications software should have parity set to none, data bits 
to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1) and use ANSI or VT-100 terminal 
emulation. For more information call Ms. Christine Daily, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Phone (301) 415-6026; FAX 
(301) 415-5385.
    The NRC requests public comment on the draft generic environmental 
impact statement. Comments on the draft statement may be submitted to 
the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that 
are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for review and approval of the information collection 
requirements.
    The public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average 31.6 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate 
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information and Records 
Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Desk Officer, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0014), Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this 
proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of 
the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is 
available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street 
NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be 
obtained by written request from RPHEB Secretary, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555.
    Background documents on the rulemaking, including the text of the 
proposed rule, the Draft GEIS, Appendix A of the Draft GEIS, the 
Regulatory Analysis, and the NRC staff working draft Regulatory Guide 
are also available for downloading and viewing on the NRC Enhanced 
Participatory Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning 
Electronic Bulletin Board, 1-800-880-6091. (See 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. 
The communications software should have parity set to none, data bits 
to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1) and use ANSI or VT-100 terminal 
emulation. For more information call Ms. Christine Daily, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Phone (301) 415-6026; FAX 
(301) 415-5385.
    The Commission requests public comment on the draft analysis. 
Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated 
under the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not 
have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities. Although the proposed rule would cover all 22,000 licensees 
regulated by the NRC and Agreement States, small entities covered by 
this rule are primarily licensees that possess and use only materials 
with short half-lives or materials only in sealed sources. 
Decommissioning efforts for these licensees are simple and require only 
that sealed sources are properly disposed of or that short-lived 
materials are allowed to decay. Complete details of the cost analysis 
are contained in Section 4.5 of the Regulatory Analysis.
    Although there is no indication that this proposed rule would 
significantly impact a substantial number of small entities, the NRC is 
seeking comments from small entities that may be impacted by the rule. 
Any small entity subject to this regulation which determines that, 
because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse 
economic impact should notify the Commission of this in a comment that 
indicates the following:
    (a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would 
result in a significant economic burden upon the licensee as compared 
to the economic burden on a larger licensee;
    (b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into 
account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities;
    (c) The benefits that would accrue, or the detriments that would be 
avoided, if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the 
licensee;
    (d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely 
equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to 
the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special 
advantages to any individual or group; and
    (e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still 
adequately protect public health and safety.

Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does 
not apply to this proposed rule and therefore, that a backfit analysis 
is not required for this proposed rule because these amendments do not 
involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 
50.109(a)(1).

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 20

    Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear 
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational and public 
dose limits, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers, 
Permissible doses, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Respiratory protection, Special nuclear material, Source 
material, Surveys and monitoring, Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 30

    Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Government contracts, 
Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Radiation 
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 40

    Criminal penalties, Government contracts, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Source material, Uranium.

10 CFR Part 50

    Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire 
protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting 
criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact 
statements, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 70

    Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Material 
control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, 
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.

10 CFR Part 72

    Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety 
and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security 
measures, Spent fuel.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to 
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 
and 72.

PART 20--STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION

    1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 
stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (2 U.S.C. 
2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as 
amended, 202, 206, 88 stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 
5841, 5842, 5846).

    2. In 10 CFR 20.1003, ``Definitions,'' the definition of background 
radiation is revised and new definitions Critical Group, 
Decommissioning, Indistinguishable from background, Readily removable, 
Residual Radioactivity, and Site-Specific Advisory Board are added in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 20.1003  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Background radiation means radiation from cosmic sources; naturally 
occurring radioactive material, including radon (except as a decay 
product of source or special nuclear material); and global fallout as 
it exists in the environment from the testing of nuclear explosive 
devices or from past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl which contribute 
to background radiation and are not under the control of the licensee. 
``Background radiation'' does not include radiation from source, 
byproduct, or special nuclear materials regulated by the Commission.
* * * * *
    Critical Group means the group of individuals reasonably expected 
to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any 
applicable set of circumstances.
* * * * *
    Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service 
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits (1) release 
of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license, or 
(2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination 
of the license.
* * * * *
    Indistinguishable from background means that the detectable 
concentration of a radionuclide is not statistically different from the 
background concentration of that radionuclide in the vicinity of the 
site or, in the case of structures, in similar materials using adequate 
measurement technology, survey, and statistical techniques.
* * * * *
    Readily removable means removable using non-destructive, common, 
housekeeping techniques (e.g., washing with moderate amounts of 
detergent and water) that do not generate large volumes of radioactive 
waste requiring subsequent disposal or produce chemical wastes that are 
expected to adversely affect public health or the environment.
* * * * *
    Residual radioactivity means radioactivity in structures, 
materials, soils, groundwater, and other media at a site resulting from 
activities under the licensee's control. This includes radioactivity 
from all licensed and unlicensed sources used by the licensee, but 
excludes background radiation. It also includes radioactive materials 
remaining at the site as a result of routine or accidental releases of 
radioactive material at the site and previous burials at the site, even 
if those burials were made in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 
Part 20.
* * * * *
    Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) means a committee constituted 
by the licensee to provide advice to the licensee on decommissioning.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 20.1009, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 20.1009   Information collection requirements: OMB approval.

* * * * * *
    (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in 
this part appear in Secs. 20.1101, 20.1202, 20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1301, 
20.1302, 20.1403, 20.1405, 20.1407, 20.1408, 20.1501, 20.1601, 20.1703, 
20.1901, 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1905, 20.1906, 20.2002, 20.2004, 20.2006, 
20.2102, 20.2103, 20.2104, 20.2105, 20.2106, 20.2107, 20.2108, 20.2110, 
20.2201, 20.2202, 20.2203, 20.2204, 20.2206, and Appendix F.
    4. A new Subpart E entitled ``Radiological Criteria for 
Decommissioning,'' is added to 10 CFR Part 20 to read as follows:

Subpart E--Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning

Sec.
20.1401  Scope.
20.1402  Concepts.
20.1403  General provisions.
20.1404  Radiological criteria for unrestricted release.
20.1405  Criteria for license termination under restricted 
conditions.
20.1406  Notification and public participation.
20.1407  Site-Specific Advisory Board.
20.1408  Minimization of contamination.


Sec. 20.1401   Scope.

    (a) The criteria in this subpart apply to the decommissioning of 
facilities licensed under Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, and 72 of this 
chapter, as well as other facilities subject to the Commission's 
jurisdiction under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the 
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. For high-level and low-
level waste disposal facilities (10 CFR Parts 60 and 61), the criteria 
apply only to ancillary surface facilities that support radioactive 
waste disposal activities. For uranium mills, the criteria apply to 
decommissioning of the facility but not to the disposal of uranium mill 
tailings or to soil cleanup. (See Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40).
    (b) The criteria in this subpart do not apply to sites already 
covered by a decommissioning plan approved by the Commission before 
[insert effective date of rule] and in accordance with the criteria 
identified in the Site Decommissioning Management Plan Action Plan of 
April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13389).
    (c) After a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated 
in accordance with the criteria in this proposed rule, the Commission 
will require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it 
determined that residual radioactivity remaining at the site could 
result in significant public risk.
    (d) This subpart also requires that, after the effective date of 
rule, applicants for licenses, other than renewals, describe in the 
application how facility design and procedures for operation will 
minimize contamination of the facility and the environment, facilitate 
eventual decommissioning, and minimize the generation of radioactive 
waste.


Sec. 20.1402   Concepts.

    (a) 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.
    (b) The limit for release of a site is 15 mrem/y (0.15 mSv/y) Total 
Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) to an average member of the Critical 
Group for residual radioactivity distinguishable from background. If 
doses from residual radioactivity are less than 15 mrem/y TEDE, the 
Commission will terminate the license and authorize release of the site 
for unrestricted use following the licensee's demonstration that the 
residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced to As Low As 
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).
    (c) ALARA considerations must include all significant risks to 
humans and the environment resulting from the decommissioning process. 
Licensees shall demonstrate why further reductions below the limit are 
not reasonably achievable. Depending on the site-specific ALARA 
analysis, any dose level less than or equal to 15 mrem/y may be 
considered ALARA. However, in many situations, licensees may have 
little or no site contamination and should be able to readily achieve 
the overall objective for decommissioning (e.g., licensees that use 
only sealed sources or short-lived radioisotopes).
    (d) The Commission expects the licensee to make every reasonable 
effort to reduce residual radioactivity to levels that will allow 
unrestricted release of the site. However, the Commission will consider 
terminating a license in cases where restrictions must be imposed on 
the use of the site to ensure that public doses are maintained below 
the 15 mrem/y (0.15 mSv/y) TEDE limit, provided the licensee:
    (1) Can demonstrate by analysis of the benefits and risks of 
further reduction that residual radioactivity at the site is ALARA and 
that further reductions in residual radioactivity necessary to comply 
with the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit for unrestricted use are not technically 
achievable, would be prohibitively expensive, or would result in net 
public or environmental harm;
    (2) Has made adequate provisions for institutional controls to 
reduce annual TEDE from residual radioactivity distinguishable from 
background to the average member of the appropriate critical group to 
15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE;
    (3) Has provided sufficient financial assurance to enable an 
independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for 
any necessary control and maintenance of the site; and
    (4) Has reduced the residual radioactivity at the site so that the 
TEDE from residual radioactivity would not exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) per 
year even if the restrictions applied in the termination were no longer 
effective in limiting the possible scenarios or pathways of exposure.


Sec. 20.1403   General provisions.

    (a) When calculating TEDE, the licensee shall base estimates on the 
greatest annual TEDE dose expected within the first 1000 years after 
decommissioning. Estimates must be substantiated using actual 
measurements to the maximum extent practical.
    (b) When determining ALARA, the licensee shall consider all 
significant risks to humans and the environment resulting from the 
decommissioning process (including transportation and disposal of 
radioactive wastes generated in the process) and from residual 
radioactivity remaining at the site following termination of the 
license.
    (c) During decommissioning, the licensee shall take reasonable 
steps to remove all readily removable residual radioactivity from the 
site.
    (d) The licensee shall demonstrate a reasonable expectation that 
residual radioactivity from the site will not cause the level of 
radioactivity in any groundwater that is a current or potential source 
of drinking water to exceed the limits specified in 40 CFR Part 141 as 
they exist on [insert effective date of this regulation].
    (e) Licensee notification to the Commission of intent to 
decommission in accordance with Secs. 30.36(b), 40.42(b), 50.82(a), 
70.38(b) or 72.54 of this chapter shall specify whether the licensee 
intends to decommission in accordance with Sec. 20.1405. Licensees 
proposing to decommission in accordance with Sec. 20.1405 shall submit 
a plan for establishing and supporting a Site Specific Advisory Board 
(SSAB).
    (f) Licensees proposing to decommission in accordance with 
Sec. 20.1405, shall submit a decommissioning plan to the Commission. 
This plan shall include the recommendations of the SSAB and the 
licensee's proposed analysis and disposition of this advice.


Sec. 20.1404   Radiological criteria for unrestricted release.

    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).


Sec. 20.1405   Criteria for license termination under restricted 
conditions.

    A site will be considered acceptable for license termination under 
restricted conditions if:
    (a) The licensee can demonstrate that further reductions in 
residual radioactivity necessary to comply with the provisions of 
Sec. 20.1404 are not technically achievable, would be prohibitively 
expensive, or would result in net public or environmental harm; and
    (b) The licensee has made provisions for institutional controls 
that 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. 
Institutional controls must be enforceable by a responsible government 
entity or in a court of law in response to suits by affected parties; 
and
    (c) 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. 
Acceptable financial assurance mechanisms are:
    (1) Funds placed into an account segregated from the licensee's 
assets and outside the licensee's administrative control as described 
in Sec. 30.35(f)(1) of this chapter;
    (2) Surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method as 
described in Sec. 30.35(f)(2) of this chapter; or
    (3) A statement of intent in the case of Federal, State, or local 
government licensees, as described in Sec. 30.35(f)(4) of this chapter.
    (d) Residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced so that if 
the institutional controls were no longer in effect, there is 
reasonable assurance that the TEDE from residual radioactivity 
distinguishable from background to the average member of the critical 
group would not exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year, and is as low as 
reasonably achievable. Calculations used to show compliance with this 
provision may not assume any benefits from earthen cover or other 
earthen barriers unless specifically authorized by the Commission.


Sec. 20.1406   Public notification and public participation.

    (a) Upon the receipt of a decommissioning plan from the licensee, 
or a proposal by the licensee for restricted release of a site pursuant 
to Sec. 20.1405, or whenever the Commission deems such notice to be in 
the public interest, the Commission shall:
    (1) Notify and solicit comments from local and State governments in 
the vicinity of the site and any Indian Nation or other indigenous 
people that have treaty or statutory rights that could be affected by 
the decommissioning; and
    (2) Publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such 
as local newspapers, which is readily accessible to individuals in the 
vicinity of the site and solicit comments from affected parties.
    (b) For decommissioning where the licensee does not propose to meet 
the conditions for unrestricted release pursuant to Sec. 20.1404 of 
this part, the licensee shall convene a Site Specific Advisory Board 
(SSAB) as described in Sec. 20.1407 for the purpose of obtaining advice 
from affected parties regarding the proposed decommissioning.


Sec. 20.1407   Site Specific Advisory Board.

    (a) The SSAB should provide advice to the licensee, as appropriate, 
on:
    (1) Whether there are ways to reduce residual radioactivity to a 
level necessary to comply with the provisions of Sec. 20.1404 which are 
technically achievable, would not be prohibitively expensive and would 
not result in net public or environmental harm;
    (2) Whether provisions for institutional controls proposed by the 
licensee:
    (i) Will 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;
    (ii) Will be enforceable; and
    (iii) Will impose undue burdens on the local community or other 
affected parties.
    (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.
    (b) Membership of the SSAB shall to the extent that representatives 
are willing to participate:
    (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;
    (2) Be selected from individuals nominated by organizations which 
represent these interests; and
    (3) Include representatives from the licensee; local and state 
governments; 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.
    (c) The SSAB shall consist of approximately 10 members plus an ex 
officio representative selected by the Commission.
    (d) The licensee shall be responsible for establishing the SSAB and 
the developing of appropriate SSAB operating procedures with the advice 
of the SSAB.
    (e) The licensee shall provide adequate administrative support for 
SSAB activities and shall provide the SSAB access to studies and 
analyses that are readily available to the licensee and are pertinent 
to the proposed decommissioning.
    (f) Meetings of the SSAB are open to the public. The licensee shall 
provide adequate public notice of the location, time, date, and agenda 
for the meetings at least 2 weeks in advance of each meeting. All 
records generated or reviewed by the SSAB become part of the docket, 
must be retained by the licensee until the license is terminated, and 
must be available for public inspection.


Sec. 20.1408  Minimization of contamination.

    Applicants for licenses, other than renewals, after [insert 
effective date of rule], shall describe in the application how facility 
design and procedures for operation will minimize, to the extent 
practicable, contamination of the facility and the environment, 
facilitate eventual decommissioning, and minimize, to the extent 
practicable, the generation of radioactive waste.

PART 30--RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL

    5. The authority citation for Part 30 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 
953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat 444, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 201, as 
amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 
5841, 5842, 5846).

    Section 30.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat 3123, (42 
U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.61 also issued under sec. 
187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
    6. In Sec. 30.4, ``Definitions,'' the definition of decommission is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 30.4  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service 
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits (1) release 
of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license, or 
(2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination 
of the license.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec. 30.35, paragraph (g)(3)(iv) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 30.35  Financial assurance and record keeping for decommissioning.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) All areas outside of restricted areas that contain material 
such that, if the license expired, the licensee would be required to 
either decontaminate the area to meet the criteria for decommissioning 
in 10 CFR 20, subpart E, or apply for approval for disposal under 10 
CFR 20.2002.
* * * * *
    8. In Sec. 30.36, paragraphs (c)(1)(v),(d), and (f)(3) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 30.36  Expiration and termination of licenses.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) * * *
    (v) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed 
activities were carried out and submit a report of the results of this 
survey, unless the licensee demonstrates that the premises are suitable 
for release in accordance with NRC requirements in some other manner.
* * * * *
    (d) If the information submitted under paragraphs (c)(1)(v) or 
(c)(3) of this section does not adequately demonstrate that the 
premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements, 
the Commission will inform the licensee of the appropriate further 
actions required for termination of license.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) (i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates 
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC 
requirements; or
    (ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to 
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance 
with NRC requirements.

PART 40--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL

    9. The authority citation for Part 40 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 
Stat. 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2), 
83, 84, Pub. L. 95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 
83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 
2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274, 
Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as 
amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 
5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L. 
97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).

    Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123, (42 
U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 
(42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 
187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
    10. In Sec. 40.4, ``Definitions,'' the definition of decommission 
is revised to read:


Sec. 40.4  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service 
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits (1) release 
of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license, or 
(2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination 
of the license.
* * * * *
    11. In Sec. 40.36, paragraph (f)(3)(iv) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 40.36  Financial assurance and record keeping for decommissioning.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) All areas outside of restricted areas that contain material 
such that, if the license expired, the licensee would be required to 
either decontaminate the area to meet the criteria for decommissioning 
in 10 CFR 20, subpart E, or apply for approval for disposal under 10 
CFR 20.2002.
* * * * *
    12. In Sec. 40.42, paragraphs (c)(1)(v),(d), and (f)(3) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 40.42  Expiration and termination of licenses.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) * * *
    (v) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed 
activities were carried out and submit a report of the results of this 
survey, unless the licensee demonstrates that the premises are suitable 
for release in accordance with NRC requirements in some other manner. 
The licensee shall, as appropriate--
* * * * *
    (d) If the information submitted under paragraphs (c)(1)(v) or 
(c)(3) of this section does not adequately demonstrate that the 
premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements, 
the Commission will inform the licensee of the appropriate further 
actions required for termination of license.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) (i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates 
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC 
requirements; or
    (ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to 
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance 
with NRC requirements.

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 
FACILITIES

    13. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 
83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

    Section 50.7 is also issued under Pub. L 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123, (42 
U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 
936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 
82 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 
also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). 
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 
Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also 
issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). 
Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 
U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. 
L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued 
under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50-81 
also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). 
Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
    14. In Sec. 50.2, ``Definitions,'' the definition of decommission 
is revised to read:


Sec. 50.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service 
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits (1) release 
of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license, or 
(2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination 
of the license.
* * * * *
    15. In Sec. 50.82, paragraph (f)(2)is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.82  Application for termination of license.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation 
demonstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release in 
accordance with NRC requirements.

PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC 
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

    16. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C 2201); 
secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 
U.S.C. 5841, 5842).

    Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
4332, 4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041; 
and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243). 
Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.61, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued under 
secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec 148, Pub. 
L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 
51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as amended by 92 Stat. 
3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 
sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 
51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 114(f), 
96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)).
    17. In Sec. 51.22, paragraph (c)(19) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 51.22  Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of 
licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or 
otherwise not requiring environmental review.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (19) Decommissioning of sites where licensed operations have been 
limited to the use of:
    (i) Small quantities of short-lived radioactive materials, or
    (ii) Radioactive materials in sealed sources, provided there is no 
evidence of leakage of radioactive material from these sealed sources.
* * * * *

PART 70--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL

    18. The authority citation for Part 70 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 948, 
953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 
204, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 
5841, 5842, 5845, 5846).

    Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141, 
Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 
70.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as 
amended by Pub. L. 102-486 sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851). 
Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 
2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec. 57d, Pub. L. 93-377, 88 
Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.36 and 70.44 also issued under 
sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.61 also 
issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). 
Section 70.62 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2138).
    19. In Sec. 70.4, ``Definitions,'' the definition of decommission 
is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 70.4   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service 
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits (1) release 
of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license, or 
(2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination 
of the license.
* * * * *
    20. In Sec. 70.25, paragraph (g)(3)(iv) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 70.25   Financial assurance and record keeping for 
decommissioning.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) All areas outside of restricted areas that contain material 
such that, if the license expired, the licensee would be required to 
either decontaminate the area to meet the criteria for decommissioning 
in 10 CFR 20, subpart E, or apply for approval for disposal under 10 
CFR 20.2002.
    21. In Sec. 70.38, paragraphs (c)(1)(v),(d), and (f)(3) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 70.38   Expiration and termination of licenses.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) * * *
    (v) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed 
activities were carried out and submit a report of the results of this 
survey, unless the licensee demonstrates that the premises are suitable 
for release in accordance with NRC requirements in some other manner.
* * * * *
    (d) If the information submitted under paragraphs (c)(1)(v) or 
(c)(3) of this section does not adequately demonstrate that the 
premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements, 
the Commission will inform the licensee of the appropriate further 
actions required for termination of license.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) (i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates 
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC 
requirements; or
    (ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to 
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance 
with NRC requirements.

PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF 
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

    22. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 
184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 
954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 
2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 
688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); 
Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-
486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102 Pub. L. 
91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 
137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, 
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 
10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

    Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), 
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 
10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 
(42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 
10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-
203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued 
under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 
Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244, (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 
10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 
2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and Sec. 218(a) 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).
    23. In Sec. 72.3, ``Definitions,'' the definition of decommission 
is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 72.3   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service 
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits (1) release 
of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license, or 
(2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination 
of the license.
* * * * *
    24. In Sec. 72.54, paragraph (e)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 72.54   Application for termination of license.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation 
demonstrates that the ISFSI or MRS and site are suitable for release in 
accordance with NRC requirements.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 94-20427 Filed 8-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P