[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19711-19728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9866]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2, 20, and 50

RIN 3150-AG56


Releasing Part of a Power Reactor Site or Facility for 
Unrestricted Use Before the NRC Approves the License Termination Plan

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
regulations to standardize the process for allowing a power reactor 
licensee to release part of its facility or site for unrestricted use 
before the NRC

[[Page 19712]]

approves the license termination plan (LTP). This type of release is 
termed a ``partial site release.'' The final rule identifies the 
criteria and regulatory framework that a licensee will use to request 
NRC approval for a partial site release and provides additional 
assurance that residual radioactivity will meet the radiological 
criteria for license termination, even if parts of the site were 
released before license termination. The final rule also clarifies that 
the radiological criteria for unrestricted use apply to a partial site 
release.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 2003, for Sec.  50.75(g)(4). All remaining 
sections will be effective on May 22, 2003.

ADDRESSES: The final rule is available on the NRC's rulemaking Web site 
(http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/). For information about the interactive 
rulemaking Web site, contact Carol Gallagher, 301-415-5905 (electronic 
mail: [email protected]). Copies of certain documents related to this 
rulemaking may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Documents are also available 
electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html). From this site, the 
public can gain entry into the NRC's Agency Document Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) that provides text and image files of the 
NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 301-415-4737 or toll-free at 1-
800-397-4209, or by e-mail at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Harry Tovmassian, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3092; or by e-mail to 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Compliance with the decommissioning and license termination rules 
of 10 CFR parts 20 and 50 ensures adequate protection of the public and 
the environment from any radioactivity remaining in the facility and 
site when the reactor license is terminated. The NRC staff makes its 
determination that the licensee has met the license termination 
criteria using information submitted by the licensee in its license 
termination plan (LTP) and final radiation survey. The LTP is required 
no later than 2 years before the anticipated date of license 
termination. The license termination radiation survey is required after 
the licensee completes its decontamination activities. These 
requirements were based on the NRC's anticipation that reactor 
licensees would permanently cease operations and then perform the 
decommissioning and license termination of the site as one project. 
However, in 1999, a licensee informed the NRC staff that it intended to 
sell parts of its facility and site before it permanently ceased 
operations. As a result, the staff was faced with the need to evaluate 
the adequacy of the licensee's proposed action before the licensee was 
required to submit the information required by the license termination 
rule (LTR) and the final radiation survey.
    In evaluating the NRC staff's response to the proposed sale of 
parts of the licensee's facility and site, a number of actions specific 
to the case were taken to ensure that the property would meet the 
radiological release criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR part 20, 
subpart E.
    However, the NRC recognized that the current regulations in 10 CFR 
part 50 do not specifically address the release of part of a reactor 
facility or site for unrestricted use. Thus, there is no specific 
guidance as to the release criteria under 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, 
for a partial site release.
    The purpose of the License Termination Rule (LTR) (61 FR 39301; 
July 29, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 39091; July 21, 1997) and 10 CFR 
50.82 is to ensure that the residual radioactivity for the licensed 
activity is within the criteria of the LTR. To avoid licensees taking a 
piecemeal approach to license termination, this rule provides that the 
LTP must consider the entire site as defined in the original license, 
along with subsequent modifications to the licensed site, to ensure 
that the entire area meets the radiological release requirements of 10 
CFR part 20, subpart E, at the time the license is terminated. This 
approach is consistent with the intent of the LTR to consider the whole 
site for application of the release criteria. The rule clarifies this 
intent and does not establish new policies or standards. Although no 
further surveys of previously released areas are anticipated, the dose 
assessment in the LTP must account for possible dose contributions 
associated with previously released areas in order to ensure that the 
entire area meets the radiological release requirements of 10 CFR part 
20, subpart E, (0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) reduced to as low as 
reasonably achievable (ALARA)) at the time the license is terminated. 
The requirement that licensees maintain records of property line 
changes and the radiological conditions of partial site releases 
ensures that these potential dose contributions can be adequately 
considered at the time of any subsequent partial releases and at the 
time of license termination. Draft NUREG-1757, Volume II, 
``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, 
and Determination of Radiological Criteria,'' was published for public 
comment on September 26, 2002. When finalized, this document will 
provide guidance that may assist licensees in identifying and 
accounting for these potential dose contributions.
    Therefore, the rule provides adequate assurance that residual 
radioactivity from licensed activities that remains in areas released 
for unrestricted use will meet the radiological criteria for license 
termination. It should increase public confidence in decisions to 
release parts of reactor sites and make more efficient use of NRC and 
licensee resources.

Discussion

    This rulemaking is applicable to power reactor licensees in order 
to be responsive to current industry needs, while also protecting the 
health and safety of the public. A separate rulemaking would be needed 
to address the wide variety of materials sites, many of which are 
technically more complex from a decommissioning perspective than 
reactor sites, to provide a uniform and consistent agency approach to 
partial site release. The rule requires NRC approval for a partial site 
release for unrestricted use at a reactor site before NRC approval of 
the licensee's LTP. Partial releases for restricted use are not 
permitted prior to LTP approval. Partial releases following LTP 
approval would be governed by the LTP or changes thereto.
    The approval process by which the property is released depends on 
the potential for residual radioactivity from plant operations 
remaining in the area to be released. First, for proposed release areas 
classified as non-impacted and, therefore, having no reasonable 
potential for residual radioactivity, the licensee would be allowed to 
submit a letter request for approval of the release containing specific 
information for NRC approval. In this case, because there is no 
reasonable potential for residual radioactivity, the NRC would approve 
the release of the property by letter upon determining that the 
licensee has otherwise met the criteria of the rule, provided that a 
change to a license or technical specifications description of the site 
is not necessary. Guidance for demonstrating that a proposed release 
area is non-impacted is contained in

[[Page 19713]]

NUREG-1575, ``Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation 
Manual (MARSSIM).'' However, the NRC would generally not perform 
radiological surveys and sampling of a non-impacted area. The NRC will 
determine whether the licensee's classification of any release areas as 
non-impacted is adequately justified. If the NRC should determine that 
confirmatory surveys and sampling are needed, such surveys and sampling 
would be performed as part of the NRC's inspection process.
    Second, for areas classified as impacted and, therefore, having 
some reasonable potential for residual radioactivity, the licensee will 
submit the required information in the form of a license amendment for 
NRC approval. The license amendment application will also include the 
licensee's demonstration of compliance with the radiological criteria 
for unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. In both cases, public 
participation requirements and additional recordkeeping are addressed.
    In contrast to the license termination process, the rule does not 
require a license amendment to release property for unrestricted use in 
all cases. The NRC believes this difference is justified for the 
following reasons. First, the license termination process was created 
to deal with the facility or site as a whole, which inevitably involves 
handling residual radioactivity, such as that found in plant systems. 
The rule preserves the license amendment approach for those cases when 
the potential exists for residual radioactivity and requires that the 
area meets the radiological criteria for unrestricted use. Second, for 
cases when the change does not adversely affect reactor safety and it 
is demonstrated that the area is non-impacted and, therefore, there is 
no reasonable potential for residual radioactivity, a license amendment 
is not required to adequately protect the public health and safety. The 
rule with its clearly defined criteria would be sufficient for the NRC 
to confirm a licensee's compliance with the partial site release rule. 
The NRC's oversight role in these cases is to ensure that the licensee 
meets the relevant criteria.
    The rule amends 10 CFR part 2 to provide an opportunity for a 
Subpart L hearing if the release involves an amendment. The hearing, if 
conducted, must be completed before the property is released for use. 
However, for cases where it is demonstrated that the area is non-
impacted and, therefore, there is no reasonable potential for residual 
radioactivity, a license amendment is not required by the rule. A 
review of a licensee's proposed partial site release in such cases is 
essentially a compliance review to determine if the release would 
otherwise meet the defined criteria of the regulation. Assuming the 
partial site release does not result in a change to an existing 
license, the approval of the partial site release under these 
circumstances does not require a license amendment (see Cleveland 
Electric Illuminating, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-
96-13, 44 NRC 315, 328 (1996)). In these cases, the opportunity to 
comment on the licensee's proposal for a partial site release and the 
required public meeting held before the release approval is granted 
will serve as forums for public comment on the proposed release.
    In some cases, a reactor or site-specific Independent Spent Fuel 
Storage Installation (ISFSI) license may contain license conditions or 
technical specifications that define the licensed site in detail, such 
as a site map. In these cases, if the partial site release would change 
the licensed site as described, a reactor licensee would be required to 
submit a license amendment application for the release regardless of 
the potential for residual radioactivity in the area to be released. 
However, under current regulations, a licensee could amend its license 
to remove the licensed site definition without reference to a partial 
site release and then proceed to perform the release, without obtaining 
NRC approval. The rule requires NRC approval for a partial release from 
the licensed site regardless of the amount of detail defining the site 
in the operating license.
    The rule provides for public participation. The NRC will notice 
receipt of a licensee's proposal for a partial site release regardless 
of the potential for residual radioactivity and make it available for 
public comment. Notwithstanding the opportunity for a hearing if a 
license amendment is involved, the NRC also will hold a public meeting 
in the vicinity of the site to discuss the licensee's request for 
letter approval or license amendment application, as applicable, and 
obtain comments before approving the release. The NRC has issued a 
policy statement, ``Policy on Enhancing Public Participation in NRC 
Meetings'' (67 FR 36920; May 28, 2002). This policy statement provides 
a revised policy that the NRC will follow in opening meetings to public 
observation and participation. The revised policy is discussed in the 
Comments on the Proposed Rule.
    Some commenters have expressed concern that a licensee could use a 
series of partial site releases to avoid applying the criteria of the 
license termination rule. Members of the public are concerned that the 
lack of a specific regulation for partial site releases could result in 
inconsistent application of safety standards and insufficient 
regulatory oversight of licensee actions. They also note that the 
public participation requirements of the license termination rule do 
not specifically apply to a partial site release. The rule addresses 
these concerns.
    The rule does not permit a partial site release under restricted 
conditions prior to NRC approval of the LTP, nor has any reactor 
licensee expressed interest in releasing property for restricted use. 
Any partial release for restricted use would be handled on a case-by-
case basis through application of an exemption process.
    The partial site release rule makes the following changes to 10 CFR 
part 50:
    1. Adds a new section, separate from the license termination 
process of Sec.  50.82, to address the release of part of a reactor 
facility or site for unrestricted use before the LTP is approved.
    2. Prohibits release for restricted use prior to LTP approval.
    3. Specifies criteria for the licensee to fulfill to obtain NRC 
approval of a partial site release.
    4. Allows a written request for release approval and does not 
require a license amendment for releases of property if the licensee 
demonstrates that the area is non-impacted and, therefore, there is no 
reasonable potential for residual radioactivity in the area to be 
released. The release would be approved upon NRC determination that the 
licensee has met the criteria of the rule.
    5. Requires a license amendment that contains the licensee's 
demonstration of compliance with the radiological criteria for 
unrestricted use (0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) and ALARA) for releases of 
property when the area is classified as impacted and, therefore, some 
reasonable potential for residual radioactivity in the area to be 
released exists.
    6. Revises the LTP requirements to account for previously released 
property in demonstrating compliance with the radiological release 
criteria.
    7. Requires the NRC to hold a public meeting to inform the public 
of the partial site release request and receive public comments before 
acting on the request.
    8. Incorporates into the recordkeeping important to decommissioning 
the records of property subject to the release criteria.
    9. Adds supporting definitions of key terms.
    The partial site release rule makes the following changes to 10 CFR 
part 20:

[[Page 19714]]

    1. Includes releasing part of a facility or site within the scope 
of the radiological criteria for license termination.
    2. Includes releasing part of a facility or site for unrestricted 
use within the scope of the criteria by which the NRC may require 
additional cleanup on receiving new information following the release.
    The partial site release rule makes the following change to 10 CFR 
part 2:
    1. Provides for informal hearings in accordance with subpart L for 
amendments associated with partial site releases.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    This analysis presents a summary of the comments received on the 
proposed rule, the NRC's response to the comments, and changes made to 
the final rule as a result of these comments.
    The NRC received 11 comment letters. Three were from States 
(Connecticut, Illinois, and Washington), seven from the industry 
including six power reactor licensees and the Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI), and one from the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site 
Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) Workgroup.
    The Commission sought input from stakeholders on seven specific 
issues associated with partial site release. The stakeholder input and 
the NRC responses to these issues follow.
1. Support for the Proposed Rule
    Comment: None of the commenters were opposed to the idea of a 
process for releasing part of a site or facility. Six of the 11 
commenters provided specific comments in general support of the concept 
of the proposed rule. The NEI, representing the industry, stated that 
recent industry experience with decommissioning power reactors 
indicates that this rule will provide real value to the reactor 
licensee and the host community. In addition, operating reactor 
facilities and their host communities will have the option to use 
property that does not directly support plant operations. Industry 
supports this needed regulatory action.
    Response: The NRC is not making any changes to the final rule that 
the NRC believes would negate the general support for this rulemaking.
2. Partial Releases Following NRC Approval of the LTP
    Comment: One reactor licensee and the NEI disagreed with the 
statement in the proposed rule that, once an LTP has been approved, 
there is no longer any need for a separate regulatory mechanism for 
partial releases. They noted that a significant length of time may pass 
between approval of the LTP and license termination, and that licensees 
should retain the opportunity to pursue a partial site release, even 
after the LTP has been approved, without having to revise the LTP by 
amendment with its potential for a hearing process.
    Response: The purpose of the statement in the proposed rule that 
there is no longer any need for a separate regulatory mechanism for 
partial site releases once the LTP is approved was to clarify the 
difference between the partial site release process and the LTP change 
process. This rule only applies to partial site releases that take 
place prior to approval of a licensee's LTP. After the LTP has been 
approved, partial site releases (as subsequent revisions to the LTP), 
would require NRC approval by license amendment unless the LTP itself 
contained a sufficient change process or described staged releases of 
the property prior to license termination. Therefore, no changes to the 
final rule have been made in response to this comment.
3. Site Boundary Definition
    Comment: Two reactor licensees and the NEI commented that the 
definition of Site Boundary in 10 CFR 20.1003 must be changed and 
clarifications added to the Statements of Consideration on the uses of 
``site'' and ``site boundary.'' The definition of site boundary in 
Sec.  20.1003 is ``that line beyond which the land or property is not 
owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the licensee.'' In general, 
the commenters stated that licensees may own, lease or control 
property, including property contiguous with their existing site, which 
is not associated with licensed activities and which should not be 
subject to the radiological release criteria of Part 20. The NEI 
commented that, in practical terms, the LTR should apply to all 
properties directly associated with the use of licensed materials.
    Additionally, one reactor licensee commented that, in such cases 
when the licensee owns, leases, or controls property that is contiguous 
to the facility but is not for the purpose of receiving, possessing, or 
using licensed materials, the rule should permit the licensee to make 
changes to the site boundary under 10 CFR 50.59. Also, when such 
property is acquired, it should not be required to be incorporated into 
the site boundary.
    Response: The Commission disagrees with the commenter's suggestion 
that the definition of ``site boundary'' in 10 CFR 20.1003 must be 
changed but agrees that clarification of this issue is needed. ``Site 
boundary,'' as defined in 10 CFR 20.1003 is not the area to be 
considered in demonstrating compliance with the radiological release 
criteria for all licensees. As one commenter accurately pointed out, 
the definition of site boundary was incorporated into 10 CFR part 20 to 
support the concept of a controlled area. The terms ``site'' and ``site 
boundary'' are used in a number of contexts by licensees and in the 
Commission's regulations. In the context of 10 CFR part 50, the term 
site boundary is typically applied for emergency planning purposes to 
define the point when offsite dose consequences are to be estimated for 
purposes of defining emergency action classes and making protective 
action measure recommendations. The site boundary is also often 
referred to in reactor plant technical specifications for the purpose 
of defining the point when effluents must meet the dose and 
concentration limits of part 20.
    Because the radiological release criteria provided in 10 CFR part 
20, subpart E, does not use the term ``site boundary'', the NRC does 
not believe the ``site boundary'' definition in Sec.  20.1003 requires 
amending in order to describe the site area which must be considered in 
demonstrating compliance with the release criteria. Rather, for the 
purpose of partial site release, the focus is on the current and 
historic licensed site, meaning the site area as described in the 
original NRC license application, plus any acquisition of property 
outside the originally licensed site boundary added for the purpose of 
receiving, possessing, or using licensed material at any time during 
the term of the license.
    This clarification will apply to the majority of release 
situations, including those at multi-unit sites. One commenter pointed 
out, however, that the clarification may complicate terminating the 
license in the case in which a part of the originally licensed site 
became part of the licensed site for another licensee at some time in 
the past, and the originally licensed site is no longer clearly 
delineated. The partial site release rule is not amended to address 
these unique license termination issues. A determination of what 
property must be considered in demonstrating compliance with the 
release criteria in these circumstances will necessarily be addressed 
on a case-by-case basis.
    Sales or other dispositions of property from within the licensed 
site area by a power reactor licensee prior to NRC approval of the LTP 
requires NRC

[[Page 19715]]

preapproval under the partial site release rule. Acquisitions, as well 
as subsequent dispositions, of property located outside of the licensed 
site area can be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 and NRC pre-approval of 
these transactions is not required as long as a licensing action is not 
otherwise required as a result of any regulations impacted as a result 
of the acquisition or disposition. Depending on the specific site 
circumstances, acquired property may become part of the several site 
boundaries established by licensees such as the exclusion area, 
emergency planning zone, effluent release compliance boundary, 
restricted area, controlled area, etc., and are therefore subject to 
applicable regulatory requirements.
    In clarifying the area subject to the radiological release 
criteria, the recordkeeping requirements in 10 CFR 50.75(g) have been 
revised to require that licensees maintain records of the current and 
historic licensed site area as well as records associated with partial 
releases from the licensed site made prior to license termination. By 
maintaining these records, potential dose contributions from residual 
radioactivity in the entire area, including any areas previously 
released, can be assessed in demonstrating compliance with the 
radiological release criteria when performing a partial site release 
and when terminating the license. In order to prevent confusion with 
the site boundary definition in Sec.  20.1003, the term ``site 
boundary'' has been changed to ``licensed site'' in the recordkeeping 
requirements added to 10 CFR 50.75(g) in the final rule.
4. Dose Contribution of Residual Material to the Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Radiation Standard
    Comment: One reactor licensee and the NEI commented that the 
language in the section-by-section analysis of the proposed rule 
clarifying the relationship between radiation exposure limits 
associated with 10 CFR part 20 subpart D, subpart E, and the EPA's 
limits specified in 40 CFR part 190, ``Environmental Radiation 
Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,'' establishes a new 
policy position as written and constitutes a backfit if incorporated 
into the final rule. The commenters believe that the exposures due to 
residual radioactivity associated with a terminated 10 CFR part 50 
license are outside the scope of EPA's limits under 40 CFR part 190 and 
that it is not necessary to reduce the 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, 
standard to account for additional exposures that originate from the 
operation of nearby uranium fuel cycle facilities. The commenters 
stated that if this interpretation were to hold it would have 
significant impact not only on licensees considering partial site 
release but also on licensees currently proceeding to terminate their 
part 50 licenses with an onsite ISFSI.
    Additionally, a commenter stated that the existence of other 
sources of exposure to the critical group is already accounted for in 
the construction of the 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) radiological release 
criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. The 
commenter also stated that, after a portion of the site is released, it 
no longer meets the definition of ``uranium fuel cycle operation,'' and 
therefore takes exception to the statements in the proposed rule that 
the dose caused by residual material associated with a partial site 
release is to be considered in combination with the other public doses 
from fuel cycle facilities.
    Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the 
section-by-section discussion clarifying the relationship between 10 
CFR part 20, subparts D and E, and EPA's requirements in 40 CFR part 
190 constitutes a new policy position and, therefore, requires a 
backfit analysis. As discussed in the Background section of these 
Statements of Consideration, the purpose of the LTR was to ensure that 
the residual radioactivity for the licensed activity is within the 
criteria of the LTR. To avoid licensees taking a piecemeal approach to 
license termination, the LTP must consider the entire site as defined 
in the original license, along with subsequent modifications to the 
license, to ensure that the entire area meets the radiological release 
requirements of 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, at the time the license is 
terminated. This partial site release rule is consistent with the 
intent of the LTR and establishes no new policies or standards. The 
dose contributions associated with previously released areas meet the 
radiological release requirements of 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, at the 
time the license is terminated. Draft NUREG-1757, Volume II, 
``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, 
and Determination of Radiological Criteria,'' when finalized, will 
provide guidance to licensees on how to identify and account for these 
potential dose contributors. The discussion in the section-by-section 
analysis represents the NRC's views on the application of existing 
requirements in 10 CFR part 20 to the new circumstance of partial site 
releases. However, power reactor licensees should appreciate that they 
are subject to 40 CFR part 190 requirements and that site boundaries 
may need to be reconsidered as a result of a partial site release for 
purposes of compliance with 40 CFR part 190. In addition, the NRC is 
reminding licensees that for the purposes of 40 CFR part 190, they must 
consider all doses from the operating uranium fuel cycle and that doses 
from portions of sites released may have come from radioactive material 
released time from an operating uranium fuel cycle facility. This 
partial site release rule does not amend or reinterpret 40 CFR part 190 
or 10 CFR 20.1301(d), which requires certain licensees, including power 
reactor licensees, to comply with 40 CFR part 190. The NRC staff is 
developing guidance to implement 10 CFR 20.1301(d) for partial site 
releases, which will be incorporated into NUREG-1757, Volume II. Except 
for the information collection requirements in 10 CFR 50.75(g), which 
are not backfits, the requirements in this final rulemaking arise from 
the voluntary action of the licensee to seek partial site release and 
thus do not impose a backfit as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a). Therefore, 
the NRC finds that the proposed rule discussion of the relationship 
between 10 CFR part 20, subparts D and E, and EPA's requirements in 40 
CFR part 190 does not constitute a backfit, and that a backfit analysis 
is not required.
    Additionally, the NRC believes that its interpretation of the 
applicability of EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 190 is correct and 
consistent with past NRC regulatory concepts. Neither commenter 
demonstrated that the NRC's discussion was inconsistent with NRC 
regulatory concepts as articulated in the past, or inconsistent with 
past NRC practice with respect to license terminations in general. A 
review of the Statements of Consideration for the final 40 CFR part 190 
rule did not disclose any discussion that supports the commenters' 
contention (see 42 FR 2850, January 13, 1977). On the contrary, the NRC 
believes that its discussion is entirely consistent with the underlying 
objective of the EPA requirements in 40 CFR part 190, viz., that the 
dose to the relevant receptor be based upon the contribution of all 
radioactive materials/sources attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle 
operations, regardless of the licensing status of the radioactive 
materials or the land on which they are located.
    The NRC also disagrees that a partially released area no longer 
meets the definition for ``uranium fuel cycle operation,'' and 
therefore, the dose contribution attributable to residual

[[Page 19716]]

material on the partially released site is not required to be 
considered in determining compliance with the standards of 40 CFR part 
190. It is true that, once a portion of the site is released, it is no 
longer an active part of a uranium fuel cycle operation. However, as 
noted above, it is residual material resulting from previous operation 
of the facility, introduced into the general environment as a result of 
the licensee's action to release the property for unrestricted use, 
that contributes to the public exposures within the scope of EPA's 
regulations at 40 CFR part 190. With respect to the definition of 
``uranium fuel cycle,'' the Commission notes that neither the LTR, nor 
this rulemaking, redefine or limit the definition of uranium fuel 
cycle. Residual radioactivity does not lose its original pedigree by 
the NRC's action to terminate a license. The dose from this residual 
material must be considered in combination with other uranium fuel 
cycle exposures under 40 CFR part 190. The commenters' position would 
be true only if the EPA regulation had a temporal component, i.e., they 
were intended to cover only current and/or future operations at the 
site. The regulations contain no temporal limitation and simply state 
that the dose equivalent must consider exposures ``from uranium fuel 
cycle operations.'' Moreover, the definition of ``uranium fuel cycle'' 
in 40 CFR 190.02 covers activities which are sequential in time (i.e., 
for any given site they may not occur simultaneously). Nonetheless, 
under 40 CFR 190.10(a) the total contribution must be considered in 
determining compliance with the 40 CFR part 190 dose standards when 
releasing radiologically impacted property for unrestricted use. 
Assuming that the criterion is intended to integrate the instantaneous 
dose attributable to radioactive materials whose genesis is directly 
attributable to uranium fuel cycle operations, it is irrelevant that 
the radioactive materials happen to be located on a site that is no 
longer used for uranium fuel cycle operations. For these reasons, the 
NRC continues to believe that its discussion of the applicability of 40 
CFR part 190 in the section-by-section analysis is correct.
    Comment: Section 50.83(a)(1)(i) requires that licensees seeking NRC 
approval of a partial site release evaluate the effect of releasing the 
property to ensure that the dose to individual members of the public 
from the portion of the facility or site remaining under the license 
does not exceed the limits of 10 CFR part 20, subpart D. One reactor 
licensee and the NEI commented that the term ``portion of the facility 
or site remaining under the license'' be changed to ``portion of the 
facility or site that has not been released for unrestricted use.''
    Response: As described above, when evaluating compliance with the 
public dose limits and standards, the dose from a proposed partial site 
release must be combined with the dose from other fuel cycle sources, 
which would include the portion of a site or facility remaining under 
the license as well as residual material from previously released 
impacted property. However, the proposed rule inappropriately limited 
the dose to be considered to that associated with the portion of the 
site remaining under the license. Section 50.83(a)(1)(i) has been 
changed in the final rule to require licensees to evaluate the effect 
of releasing the property to ensure all applicable doses are considered 
with regard to the limits and standards of 10 CFR part 20, subpart D. 
The evaluation would include consideration of all applicable exposure 
sources, including relevant fuel cycle sources pursuant to compliance 
with the EPA's environmental radiation standards incorporated at 10 CFR 
20.1301(d). Consequently, rather than adopting the commenter's 
suggested language, the Commission has adopted broader, more accurate 
language in the final rule.
5. Use of Distinguishability From Background as a Release Criterion for 
Impacted Areas
    Comment: The partial site release rule, as originally envisioned, 
proposed that radiologically impacted but remediated areas could be 
released using the same approval process as a non-impacted area if it 
could be demonstrated that the radioactivity is not distinguishable 
from the background radioactivity. Prior to publishing the proposed 
rule, however, the NRC staff concluded that a technical basis for such 
a criterion has not been established, and the criterion was not 
incorporated.
    One reactor licensee stated that the rule should preserve, as an 
alternative, the ability to release an impacted area if it can be 
demonstrated that there is no residual radioactivity distinguishable 
from the background present. The release process should then follow the 
same process as that for a non-impacted area, approval by letter as 
opposed to a license amendment. Additionally, the commenter stated that 
the burden in this alternative is to develop and present strong 
reference background radiation data to support and defend the validity 
of its use, that the appropriate criterion for indistinguishability 
from background does exist, and that a potential criterion 
corresponding to the current free release criterion could be used by 
licensees.
    Additionally, a State commenter suggested that the rule incorporate 
the MARSSIM approach to include a comparison of statistical 
distributions (survey vs. background) used to determine if radiation 
levels in the area surveyed are indistinguishable from background.
    Response: A distinguishability-from-background release criterion 
cannot be incorporated into the regulations even as an alternative. In 
order to demonstrate that a given level of radiation is distinguishable 
from background, the statistical process for determining the radiation 
dose or concentration would require the specification of exactly ``how 
hard to look'' in order to ``see'' a difference from the background 
dose or concentration. Specifying how hard to look would, in effect, be 
the same as specifying an allowable difference from background that is 
not statistically important to detect. This would amount to specifying 
an allowable increment above background. As stated in the proposed 
rule, because no such increment has been endorsed, the criterion cannot 
be incorporated into the Commission's regulations.
    Comment: A State commenter disagreed with the NRC's reasoning for 
deletion of distinguishability-from-background as a release criterion 
because for an unrestricted release, the ALARA requirements of 10 CFR 
20.1402 may dictate clean up to levels indistinguishable from natural 
background.
    The commenter also stated that, although it is recognized that 
proper definition of background is problematic because it is not a 
single value but rather a statistical distribution of values that 
varies widely with geographic location and other factors, it is a 
statistical entity (mean +/- (sd x n)) that can be empirically 
determined on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the ``minimum value 
above mean background against which to compare survey results,'' which 
the NRC has stated is a value which is not endorsed, can be established 
by setting a reasonable value for ``n'' in the foregoing expression.
    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment. There is no 
connection between ALARA requirements associated with the cleanup of an 
impacted area and the Commission's decision to delete 
distinguishability-from-background as a

[[Page 19717]]

release criterion. The ALARA requirements dictate clean up to levels 
which are as low as reasonably achievable. There are no requirements to 
cleanup an area to ``levels indistinguishable from natural 
background.''
    Although measurement of background radioactivity is related to the 
statistical entity referred to by the commenter, the process of setting 
a reasonable value for ``n'' would present the same issue as choosing 
an increment above background for use in establishing a 
distinguishability criterion. Such a ``reasonable value'' would have to 
be established and has no current endorsement as a release criterion.
6. Recordkeeping
    Comment: The NEI recommended that the rule be clarified to 
acknowledge that reactor licensees may maintain the records associated 
with acquisition and disposition of property along with the other 
records required under 10 CFR 50.75(g) in a distributed fashion. 
Records would not necessarily reside in a specific file folder, but 
would be maintained within the overall record management system.
    Response: The NRC recognizes that licensees may maintain these 
records in a distributed fashion within the overall record management 
system. As stated in 10 CFR 50.75(g), if records of relevant 
information are kept for other purposes, references to these records 
and their location may be used.
    Comment: One reactor licensee commented that, for property added 
over time, it would make sense to place the current site boundary in 
the decommissioning records at the time of rule implementation, rather 
than research and separately locate each record of acquisition in the 
past. Since the goal is to ensure the site boundary is known, and that 
any dispositions or release of property are known, there is no real 
benefit in locating and placing records of past individual acquisitions 
into the decommissioning records.
    The commenter also stated that records of licensed activities on 
property acquired since original licensing should not need to be 
maintained as separate decommissioning records if the acquired property 
is assimilated into the licensed site. Acquired property should be 
treated no differently than originally owned property from a 
decommissioning record perspective. The existing requirements for 
decommissioning records should apply to the site equally, regardless of 
whether the portion of the site was purchased after original licensing 
or before.
    In addition, the commenter stated that the cost portion of the 
regulatory analysis should also include the costs of researching site 
history and property additions, and use of the portion of the property 
that was added, if the requirement for this data to be maintained as 
separate decommissioning records is retained.
    Response: It is not the intent of the recordkeeping requirements 
added at 10 CFR 50.75(g) to require licensees to research and 
separately locate each record of acquisition made in the past. The 
recordkeeping in the proposed rule listed the records of the originally 
licensed site and those of subsequent acquisitions separately in order 
to clarify that the entire licensed site area (past and present) is 
subject to the release criteria and must be accounted for in the 
recordkeeping.
    However, because recordkeeping associated with the current licensed 
site area may not account for releases of property from the licensed 
site made prior to the partial site release rulemaking, and may not 
account for all relevant additions to the licensed site, licensees are 
cautioned that simply placing the information associated with the 
current licensed site into the decommissioning records may result in a 
record inventory which, in aggregate, does not meet the intent of the 
recordkeeping for records which must be assessed at the time of partial 
site releases and at the time of license termination.
    The listing of records of the originally licensed site and those of 
subsequent acquisitions added to the recordkeeping requirements at 10 
CFR 50.75(g) have been combined in the final rule to avoid the 
implication that these records must be researched and maintained 
separately. The cost portion of the regulatory analysis associated with 
the rule did not assume the maintenance of separate records and, 
therefore, does not require a revision as a result of this 
clarification.
    Comment: One reactor licensee commented that because establishing 
the records added to 10 CFR 50.75(g) may be time consuming, depending 
on the site's history, the final rule needs to allow implementation 
time.
    Response: Although, as stated by the NEI, licensees are already 
maintaining these property records in order to be able to comply with 
the LTR at the time of license termination, the NRC agrees that some 
period for implementation may be needed by some licensees. Therefore, 
the implementation date for the changes made to the recordkeeping 
requirements at 10 CFR 50.75(g)(4) has been modified to provide a 6-
month implementation period.
7. Lack of Clearance Standards
    Comment: One reactor licensee commented that, for either partial 
site release without a license termination plan or license termination 
for the entire site under existing rules, residual radioactivity may 
remain as long as the exposure criterion of 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, 
is satisfied. However, prior to license termination, this same residual 
radioactivity is treated as licensed material--regardless of how little 
the amount, concentration, or dose significance--and can only be 
disposed of by transport to a licensed radwaste disposal facility. The 
commenter stated that this double standard poses an incentive to retain 
radioactive material onsite to be later abandoned in order to avoid 
potentially excessive costs for radwaste disposal, while creating a 
longer term risk for additional site cleanup required by other 
regulatory authority or a court of law. The commenter further noted 
that the NRC is seeking to resolve this discrepancy through a study by 
the National Academy of Sciences and further agency deliberation, a 
process that may take several years. Prolonged delay contributes to the 
erosion in public understanding and confidence in government policy as 
well as the lack of finality for licensees. Public policy is needed to 
define the quantitative dose and radionuclide characteristics that have 
no discernible public health consequences.
    The commenter stated that the NRC should recognize that post-
license termination requirements imposed by other Federal, State or 
local agencies can prevent the actual release of a site for 
unrestricted use--in contravention to the purposes of the LTR. 
Therefore, the NRC should act to assert its authority in matters of 
radiation protection and management of radioactive materials. This will 
require definitive clearance standards that establish allowable 
quantities and concentrations of radionuclides for materials. Such 
standards, which are fully protective of public health and safety and 
are in the public interest, can be created.
    Response: Although the comments are not directly related to the 
partial site release rulemaking, the NRC is appreciative of the issues 
raised. The Commission has approved the development of a proposed rule 
to address the control of solid materials, including whether it is 
appropriate to set a standard in this area that would apply to all 
licensees. The points raised

[[Page 19718]]

in the comments will be considered as part of the Commission's review 
of alternative approaches.
8. Finality of Releases
    Comment: A reactor licensee commented that, after the Commission 
has released the property, its jurisdiction should end. The commenter 
recommended that in order to incorporate the doctrine of finality, 10 
CFR 20.1401(c) should be changed to state that after a site has been 
decommissioned and the license terminated, or after part of a facility 
or site has been released for unrestricted use, the Commission will not 
require additional cleanup.
    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment. The NRC 
believes that the desired finality of a release is not adversely 
impacted by the provisions in 10 CFR 20.1401(c). Eliminating the 
provisions for additional cleanup where a significant public risk may 
exist could have a negative impact on public health and safety and 
would degrade public confidence in the license termination process. One 
reactor licensee concurred with the provisions in Sec.  20.1401(c) by 
stating these provisions are important in providing for adequate 
protection of the public if the need for additional cleanup has been 
identified, but at the same time offering a standard that must be met 
to ensure that only clear and substantiated conditions exist that would 
warrant such actions.
    It should be noted that there is a low probability that additional 
cleanup would be required. The Statements of Consideration for the 
license termination rule (61 FR 39301; July 29, 1996, as amended at 62 
FR 39091; July 21, 1997) point out that, under the provisions of the 
rule, a licensee is allowed to demonstrate compliance with the dose 
criteria through use of several screening and modeling approaches. Each 
approach has a degree of conservatism associated with the relationship 
of the measurable level of a contaminant in the environment to the dose 
criterion. Because of the surveys performed by the licensee and 
confirmatory surveys routinely performed by NRC, the chances of 
discovering previously unidentified contamination exceeding the dose 
criteria would be very small.
9. State Regulatory Agency Participation
    Comment: A State commenter noted that the proposed rule is silent 
with regard to participation by State regulatory agencies. Although 
there are general provisions for stakeholder input and public 
participation, notification, meetings and hearings, there is no 
explicit provision for ``hands-on'' involvement by State regulators. 
The commenter suggested the rule be amended to include explicit 
provisions for State participation. The commenter also stated that, in 
their experience, the role of the State in Federally regulated site 
clearance processes has historically been that of ``independent 
verification.'' This role assures that the site release process is in 
compliance with applicable State regulations and lends additional 
credibility to a process that is inherently predisposed to intense 
public scrutiny. Participation by the State is also important in the 
event that portions of the property to be released would be transferred 
to State ownership and/or control. For these reasons, amending the rule 
to provide for independent verification by State regulators makes good 
sense.
    Response: The Commission has published the policy statement 
``Cooperation With States at Commercial Nuclear Production or 
Utilization Facilities'' (54 FR 7530; February 22, 1989, as amended at 
57 FR 6462; February 25, 1992) which the NRC believes provides an 
adequate mechanism for State regulatory agencies to participate in the 
release process. The policy statement is intended to provide a uniform 
basis for NRC/State cooperation as it relates to the regulatory 
oversight of commercial nuclear power plants and other nuclear 
production or utilization facilities. The policy statement allows State 
officials of host and adjacent States to accompany the NRC on 
inspections and, under certain circumstances, enables States to enter 
into instruments of cooperation which could allow States to directly 
participate in the NRC inspection activities at operating facilities as 
well as at those undergoing decommissioning.
    The interest of the States with regard to the scope of the partial 
site release rule is expected to be primarily concerned with licensee 
demonstrations of compliance with the radiological release criteria for 
unrestricted use. In addition to any direct or independent 
participation agreed to between the State and the NRC, or between the 
State and the licensee, it is anticipated that the States will continue 
to participate in the public meetings held prior to NRC approval of 
partial site releases, and will continue to coordinate with licensees 
and the NRC in evaluating proposed partial site releases with regard to 
the release criteria. Therefore, explicit provisions for direct State 
participation are not being incorporated into the partial site release 
rule.
10. Radiological Surveys of Non-Impacted Sites
    Comment: A State commenter stated that, rather than require the 
performance of radiological surveys for non-impacted areas, the rule 
defers to the guidance contained in MARSSIM for demonstrating that a 
proposed release area is non-impacted. The MARSSIM guidance calls for 
the performance of a historical site assessment (HSA). The HSA is an 
investigation to collect information describing a site's complete 
history from the start of site activities to the present time. 
Information collected will typically include site files, monitoring 
data, and event investigations, as well as interviews with current or 
previous employees to collect firsthand information. The assessment 
results in a classification of areas according to their potential for 
containing residual radioactivity. Areas that have no reasonable 
potential for residual radioactivity in excess of natural background or 
fallout levels are classified as non-impacted areas, and no surveys are 
required. The commenter feels that relying on a historical site 
assessment without the benefit of an up-to-date-radiation survey leads 
to results which are less reliable and more difficult to defend, and is 
contrary to the rule's stated purposes related to the assurance of 
meeting the radiological release criteria and of increasing public 
confidence.
    Additionally, the commenter stated that the NRC supports its 
position that the rule should not require surveys for non-impacted 
areas by noting that surveying a truly non-impacted area necessarily 
involves demonstrating that the radioactivity from any residual 
contamination is indistinguishable from natural background 
radioactivity. The commenter also states that the NRC has further 
supported this position in the Statements of Consideration by stating 
that, because it has not established a minimum value above mean 
background to compare survey results, surveying these areas is not 
feasible.
    Response: The NRC believes that the rule should not specifically 
require the performance of radiological surveys for non-impacted areas. 
However, the rule does not preclude the collection and use of such 
surveys by the licensee. The MARSSIM provides adequate guidance 
acceptable to the NRC for determining when additional surveys are 
appropriate, and for demonstrating that a proposed release area is non-
impacted. The MARSSIM approach in evaluating HSA data for the purposes 
of classifying an area prescribes that process knowledge of events or 
conditions

[[Page 19719]]

which may have led to residual contamination be used in combination 
with historical analytical information such as survey data. MARSSIM 
section 3.6, ``Evaluation of Historical Site Assessment Data'' states 
that if process knowledge suggests that no residual contamination 
should be present and the historical analytical data also suggests that 
no residual contamination is present, the process knowledge provides an 
additional level of confidence and supports classifying the area as 
non-impacted. MARSSIM specifically cautions however, that existing 
radiation data must be examined carefully because previous survey and 
sampling efforts may not be compatible with the objectives of the HSA, 
may not be extensive enough to sufficiently characterize the facility 
or site, and because conditions may have changed since the site was 
last sampled.
    NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2002-02, ``Lessons Learned Related to 
Recently Submitted Decommissioning Plans And License Termination 
Plans,'' states that old records may be inadequate or inaccurate for 
the purpose of developing either the HSA or site characterization, and 
suggests that these records not be relied on as the sole source of 
information for the HSA or site characterization. Interviews with 
current and former staff and contractors play an essential role in 
formulating the HSA, but may yield information as inadequate or 
inaccurate as old records. Experience has shown that old records and 
results of operational surveys and post-shutdown scoping surveys have 
been submitted as substitutes for characterization surveys. For 
example, the results of operational surveys may represent radiological 
status, describing conditions over a limited time span, or may have 
been conducted to address specific events (i.e., post-spill cleanup 
assessment). In a few instances, the results of personnel interviews 
and information, which can only be considered as anecdotal, have been 
presented in the HSA. It could not be determined whether this 
information, in fact, was part of an unbroken chronological history of 
the site or contained time gaps when operational milestones or 
occurrences were missing. Although the NRC encourages licensees to 
review old records and conduct personnel interviews (past and current 
employees and key contractors), there is a need to present the 
information obtained in its proper context and qualify its usefulness 
and how it might be supplemented by additional data searches or 
characterization surveys.
    Paragraphs 50.83(c)(2) and 50.83(d)(2) of the proposed rule stated 
that, after receiving an approval request or license amendment 
application from the licensee, the NRC will determine whether the 
licensee's historical site assessment is adequate. To avoid the 
implication that the classification of release areas as non-impacted is 
based solely on historical process knowledge of events or conditions, 
these sections have been modified in the final rule to state that the 
NRC will determine if the licensee's classification of any release 
areas as non-impacted is adequately justified. Such a determination 
would require a review of the licensee's use of both analytical data as 
well as process knowledge of events and conditions in accordance with 
the MARSSIM guidance.
    The NRC maintains its position that the rule should not require 
surveys of non-impacted areas. However, licensees may choose to survey 
these areas on their own initiative. The question of whether surveys of 
non-impacted areas should be performed is solely concerned with whether 
the HSAs and the site characterization process are adequate bases to 
conclude that there is no reasonable potential for residual 
radioactivity.
11. Final Radiation Survey and Associated Documentation
    Comment: Section 50.82(a)(11)(ii) provides the criteria for license 
termination with regard to the terminal or final radiation survey and 
its documentation. One reactor licensee and the NEI commented that 
adding the phrase ``including any parts released for use before 
approval of the license termination plan'' as suggested in the proposed 
rule implies that final surveys at license termination apply to 
previously released property and might force a licensee to perform 
remediation or conduct surveys on land which has been previously 
released for use when not otherwise required. One of the commenters 
also stated that the phrase ``released for use'' should be changed to 
``released for unrestricted use.'' Additionally, a commenter stated 
that the phrase ``are suitable for release'' with regard to the 
property being released should more appropriately be changed to 
indicate that the release meets the applicable release criteria.
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the NRC does not 
anticipate further surveys of a previously released area, but rather is 
seeking to account for, in the radiation survey and associated 
documentation demonstrating compliance with the release criteria, 
potential dose contributions associated with previously released areas. 
The language at 10 CFR 50.82(a)(11)(ii) in the final rule has therefore 
been modified to indicate that the final radiation survey and 
associated documentation is to include an assessment of dose 
contributions associated with any parts previously released for use in 
demonstrating that the facility and site meet the radiological release 
criteria. The term ``released for use'' is retained because the intent 
is that the documentation assess dose contributions from previously 
released parts of the facility or site whether they were released for 
restricted or unrestricted use. Additionally, the phrase ``are suitable 
for release'' is changed to ``have met the applicable criteria.''
12. Question From the ``Issues for Public Comment'' Section of the 
Proposed Rule: Are There Rulemaking Alternatives to This Proposed Rule 
That Were Not Considered in the Regulatory Analysis for This Proposed 
Rule?
    Comment: The NEI and one reactor licensee commented that some 
licensees have expressed a desire to have the option to use the license 
amendment approach even for non-impacted lands to provide additional 
assurance to future owners, and that this option should be included in 
the proposed rule.
    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment. There is no 
need to provide this option because the staff has determined that this 
approval is not an amendment to a license pursuant to the analysis in 
Cleveland Electric Illuminating, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, 
Unit 1), CLI-96-13, 44 NRC 315, 328 (1996). The NRC's oversight role in 
these cases is essentially a confirmation to ensure that the licensee 
complies with the clearly defined criteria found in the rule. This is 
in contrast to an impacted area where the staff must analyze and 
evaluate the information and survey documentation provided by the 
licensee in order to determine if release of the impacted area poses a 
threat to public health and safety. For these cases, the license 
amendment process is appropriate. Allowing a licensee to seek a license 
amendment for release of non-impacted areas would also decrease the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the staff's review process. The staff 
believes that a letter approval of a release will be sufficient to 
provide future property owners with assurance that the land poses no 
risk to public health and safety. Moreover, the rule established a 
process for the NRC to obtain public comments before making a decision 
to approve a release.

[[Page 19720]]

13. Question From the ``Issues for Public Comment'' Section of the 
Proposed Rule: Are the Proposed Definitions in Sec.  50.2 Clear?
    Comment: The MARSSIM Workgroup commented that the definitions of 
impacted and non-impacted areas proposed for incorporation into 10 CFR 
50.2 are inconsistent with MARSSIM. The workgroup recommends that the 
definitions be taken verbatim from the MARSSIM glossary as follows:

    Impacted Area--Any area that is not classified as non-impacted. 
Areas with a possibility of containing residual radioactivity in 
excess of natural background or fallout levels.
    Non-Impacted Area--Areas where there is no reasonable 
possibility (extremely low probability) of residual contamination. 
Non-impacted areas are typically located off-site and may be used as 
background reference areas.

    Response: The definitions of impacted and non-impacted areas being 
added to 10 CFR 50.2 will remain as presented in the proposed rule. 
These definitions were not taken from the MARSSIM glossary but were, 
for the most part, taken from the definitions provided in section 2.2 
of the MARSSIM text, titled ``Understanding Key MARSSIM Technology.'' 
The text in section 2.2 states that areas that have no reasonable 
potential for residual contamination are classified as non-impacted 
areas, and that areas with some potential for residual contamination 
are classified as impacted areas.
    In the definitions of impacted and non-impacted areas incorporated 
into the rule, the term ``residual contamination'' found in the MARSSIM 
text was replaced with the term ``residual radioactivity'' for 
consistency with the definition of residual radioactivity found in 10 
CFR 20.1003. For clarity, the definitions also specify that the 
radioactivity referred to is that which is in excess of natural 
background or fallout levels.
    In addition, the word ``reasonable'' was added to the definition of 
impacted areas in order for the definitions of impacted and non-
impacted areas to be mutually exclusive. Without the opposition between 
the two definitions, an area could conceivably meet both definitions. 
The MARSSIM glossary definition of impacted area states that it is an 
area not classified as non-impacted. Therefore, this change is 
consistent with the MARSSIM intent that the definitions be mutually 
exclusive. Also, non-impacted areas are defined in the MARSSIM glossary 
as those areas with no reasonable possibility of residual 
contamination. Impacted areas are defined as those areas with a 
possibility for residual radioactivity--meaning no matter how slight a 
possibility, because the word ``reasonable'' is omitted. Because the 
word ``reasonable'' is omitted from the MARSSIM glossary definition of 
impacted areas, the two glossary definitions are not mutually exclusive 
as intended.
    Finally, the statement in the MARSSIM glossary definition that non-
impacted areas are typically located off-site and may be used as 
background reference areas is irrelevant to the determination of 
whether an area is non-impacted and is therefore inappropriate for 
incorporation into the definition.
    Comment: One reactor licensee and the NEI recommended that the 
definitions for Historical Site Assessment, Impacted areas, and Non-
impacted areas be incorporated into 10 CFR 50.2 and be changed to 
specify that the residual material or radioactivity is that from 
licensed activities.
    Response: The radioactivity referred to in the definition of 
Historical Site Assessment cannot be limited to that resulting from 
licensed activities and the definition is not revised. Residual 
radioactivity is a defined term in 10 CFR 20.1003 referring to 
radioactivity at a site resulting from any activities under the 
licensee's control, and includes radioactivity from both licensed and 
unlicensed sources.
14. Question From the ``Issues for Public Comment'' Section of the 
Proposed Rule: Is Public Involvement Adequately Considered?
    Comment: The NEI commented that the rule adequately considers 
public involvement. A State commenter stated, however, that there is no 
mechanism described in the proposed rule that addresses how or if 
stakeholders can challenge the ``non-impacted designation'' by a 
licensee. Though the proposed rule states that it provides for public 
participation through a public meeting, a public meeting to inform 
stakeholders of NRC decisions is not a participatory process. It gives 
no right of intervention, no right of appeal, and no right of a 
meaningful review. How does a public meeting address a material dispute 
in fact? The NRC is not bound to consider any information brought 
forward during the public meeting. At the very least a mandatory public 
hearing is needed.
    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment and believes 
that the public will have ample opportunity to be involved with partial 
site release issues. The partial site release rule provides for public 
participation through review and comment on a licensee's proposed 
release plans and through participation in a public meeting whether or 
not an amendment is involved. This process enables the public to 
collect information, to comment on and question the actions at the site 
with regard to the proposed release, and to discuss relevant issues 
among stakeholders. The NRC will consider any information or concerns 
brought forward by members of the public during the public review and 
comment period or during the public meeting.
    The NRC has issued a policy statement, ``Policy on Enhancing Public 
Participation in NRC Meetings'' (67 FR 36920, May 28, 2002). This 
policy statement articulates the NRC's revised policy concerning 
opening meetings to public observation and participation. It defines 
three categories of public meeting, each with an increasing level of 
public participation. The public meeting required by the partial site 
release rule will be classified as a Category 3 meeting with the 
highest level of public participation. In these meetings, public 
participation is actively sought. The meetings are specifically 
tailored for the public to discuss relevant issues with the NRC and 
other stakeholders, to make comments, and ask questions throughout the 
meeting. Questions or concerns that cannot be resolved at the meeting 
will be assigned to a designated NRC staff person for action.
    Although there is no mandatory public hearing provided for in this 
rule, there are ways in which the public may participate in hearings on 
partial site release issues. First, in the event that a license 
amendment associated with a partial site release is challenged, there 
will be the opportunity for a hearing on the license amendment. Second, 
NRC regulations in 10 CFR 2.206, ``Requests for Action under this 
Subpart,'' allow any member of the public to raise potential health and 
safety concerns and petition the NRC to take specific actions to 
resolve a dispute identified in the petition. The NRC believes that a 
mandatory hearing is not warranted in light of the many opportunities 
for public participation. Consequently, no change has been made to the 
final rule in response to this comment.

[[Page 19721]]

15. Question From the ``Issues for Public Comment'' Section of the 
Proposed Rule: Should the License Amendment Process Be Required for All 
Partial Site Release Approvals, Regardless of Whether the Site Has Been 
Classified as Non-Impacted?
    Comment: The NEI commented that requiring the license amendment 
process for NRC approval of partial site releases of non-impacted lands 
is not justified. The comment states, however, that some licensees have 
expressed a desire to have the option to use the license amendment 
approach even for non-impacted lands and recommends that this approach 
be offered as an option.
    Response: The NRC agrees that requiring its approval for the 
release of a non-impacted area should not require a license amendment 
when an amendment is not otherwise required as a result of any 
regulations, license conditions, or technical specifications impacted 
as a result of the change.
16. Question From the ``Issues for Public Comment'' Section of the 
Proposed Rule: Does the Proposed Rule Make it Adequately Clear That 
When Performing Partial Site Releases and When Releasing the Entire 
Site at License Termination, Licensees Must Consider Potential Dose 
Contributions From Previous Partial Releases in Demonstrating 
Compliance With the Radiological Release Criteria?
    Comment: The NEI stated that the rule makes this issue adequately 
clear and also stated that the guidance promised in the proposed rule 
for assessing potential dose contributions will help identify how 
consideration of potential dose contributions can best be accomplished. 
The comment further stated that the guidance is needed before the final 
rule is issued to ensure that the partial site release process and the 
ultimate license termination can be accomplished practically as 
envisioned.
    Response: The NRC agrees that the rule makes this issue adequately 
clear. The NRC recognizes that licensees seeking partial site releases 
will require guidance as to how to account for dose contributions from 
previous releases. In order to provide this guidance, on September 26, 
2002, the NRC published a notice of availability of draft NUREG-1757, 
Volume II, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance: 
Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria,'' 
in the Federal Register for public comment and expects to publish it as 
a final document upon resolution of the public comments.
    Comment: A State commenter questioned how the partial site release 
rule addresses issues when, following release, contamination is found 
in an area classified and released as non-impacted, or where 
contamination is found to be in excess of the criteria established in 
the LTP, or, in the above conditions, when the property was transferred 
to another entity. Additionally, the commenter questioned what rights a 
potential purchaser would have against the licensee if contamination is 
found following the release.
    Response: Although the partial release removes the property from 
the license and activities conducted on the property are no longer 
under NRC jurisdiction, the rule amends 10 CFR 20.1401(c) to bring 
partial site releases within the scope of the criteria by which the 
Commission may require additional cleanup on the basis of new 
information received following the release. As stated in 10 CFR 
20.1401(c), additional cleanup would only be required if the new 
information reveals that the radiological release requirements of 10 
CFR part 20, subpart E, were not met and there continues to be a 
significant threat to public health and safety from residual 
radioactivity. The rule does not address any other matters of a 
commercial nature which may be associated with released property, 
including issues related to contamination found on released property, 
the magnitude of which falls short of the additional cleanup criteria 
in 10 CFR 20.1401(c).
17. Question From the ``Issues for Public Comment'' Section of the 
Proposed Rule: Is There a Reason To Limit the Size or Number of Partial 
Site Releases?
    Comment: The NEI and a reactor licensee stated that there is no 
reason to limit the size or number of partial site releases. They 
stated that as long as the final license termination addresses the 
entire site, the intent of the license termination rule is met.
    Response: The NRC agrees that there is no reason to limit the size 
or number of partial site releases. Partial releases performed prior to 
license termination require a demonstration of compliance with the 
radiological release criteria at 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, as well as 
a demonstration of compliance with other regulatory requirements that 
may be impacted as a result of changing site boundaries. Additionally, 
the dose contributions from residual radioactivity in previously 
released impacted areas are considered with respect to the release 
criteria when performing subsequent partial releases and when releasing 
the entire site at license termination.
18. Question From the ``Issues for Public Comment'' Section of the 
Proposed Rule: Are There Other Potential Impacts on Continued Operation 
or Decommissioning Activities as a Result of Partial Site Releases That 
Should Specifically Be Considered in the Rule?
    Comment: A State commenter stated that the impact of future 
operation or use of the area released under a partial site release must 
be considered with regard to potential threats to the storage of spent 
nuclear fuel or operation of the nuclear power plant prior to allowing 
control of the released area to be transferred to a non-licensee. The 
commenter referred to a situation in which a licensee proposes a 
partial site release with the intent to sell the released property for 
development of a gas fired electrical generating plant in close 
proximity to spent fuel stored on the remainder of the site. If no 
safety analysis is performed in advance of the release, future threats 
to the nuclear fuel will not be addressed. The commenter states that 
placing requirements on an existing licensee only after threats are 
identified as a result of future activities on a released area is not 
an acceptable mechanism for protecting public health and safety.
    Response: The NRC believes that consideration of the potential 
hazards associated with the future or end use of property proposed for 
partial site release should not be incorporated into the partial site 
release rule. Future use of property as an approval criteria based on 
expectations existing at the time of the release request holds little 
practical value because the actual future use of property released for 
unrestricted use cannot be anticipated and could, in any event, change 
following the release.
    As part of its application for a construction permit and operating 
license for a power reactor facility, the licensee is required to 
perform an analysis of the effects the reactor facility will have on 
the environment, including the effects from nearby industrial 
facilities and transportation under the siting criteria at 10 CFR part 
100. The partial site release rulemaking specifically requires 
licensees requesting a partial site release to evaluate their continued 
compliance with these siting criteria.
    Additionally, the licensee must continue to ensure that its bases 
and conclusions as presented in the Final Safety Analysis Report which 
form part of the basis for its operating license remain valid under 10 
CFR 50.71. Therefore, the licensee must ensure that

[[Page 19722]]

the licensed facility is adequately protected and that operations can 
be conducted with an acceptable degree of safety with respect to 
offsite activities as they are identified. The NRC would review any 
necessary changes to the nuclear plant license or changes to the plant 
licensing basis that evolve from the licensee's evaluation. To the 
extent that the future use of the property to be released is known, 
these reviews and evaluations would be performed as part of the 
licensee's overall assessment of the viability of obtaining NRC 
approval for a partial site release.
    The NRC recognizes that a non-licensed third party may elect to 
locate potentially hazardous facilities, or engage in hazardous 
activities, on property adjacent to a licensed site, including property 
released for unrestricted use. Although the NRC has no authority to 
regulate activities that are outside the scope of the NRC's 
jurisdiction of non-licensed third parties or to prevent third parties 
from constructing facilities or engaging in such activities which 
present a potential hazard to the licensee's plant, the NRC does have 
authority to take action against the licensee. Assuming that the 
potential hazard is such that the NRC would not have allowed the siting 
of the plant if the conditions were known, then under section 186 of 
the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC could revoke the license to prevent the 
hazard. Since the license can be revoked, lesser actions can be taken 
as well--such as suspending the license, issuing an order, or issuing a 
demand for information, depending on the circumstances.
19. Rule Language Comments
    Comment: One reactor licensee and the NEI commented that the 
language contained in Sec.  50.75(g)(4) is not consistent with existing 
Sec.  50.75(g) which states ``Information the Commission considers 
important to decommissioning consist of * * * (4) Licensees shall 
maintain property records containing the following information: * * *'' 
The term ``Licensees shall maintain'' should be deleted.
    Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters and the final wording 
in Sec.  50.75(g) reflects the comment.
    Comment: One reactor licensee and the NEI commented on the wording 
in Sec.  50.75(g)(4)(iv) of the proposed rule, stating that the word 
``disposition'' should be changed to ``release and final disposition'' 
the first time it appears, and change ``disposition'' to ``release'' 
the second time it appears.
    Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters and the final wording 
in Sec.  50.75(g) reflects the comment.
    Comment: One reactor licensee and the NEI commented on the wording 
in Sec.  50.82(a)(9)(ii)(H) of the proposed rule, stating that the term 
``released for use'' should be changed to ``released for unrestricted 
use.''
    Response: The comment is not incorporated. The intent of the 
wording in Sec.  50.82(a)(9)(ii)(H) is that the LTP identify previously 
released parts of the facility or site whether they were released for 
restricted or unrestricted use.
    Comment: One reactor licensee and the NEI commented that Sec. Sec.  
50.83(c) and 50.83(e) should include references to the satisfaction of 
the public meeting requirements specified in Sec.  50.83(f).
    Response: The NRC believes that including references to the public 
meeting requirement in Sec. Sec.  50.83(c) and 50.83(e) is redundant 
and unnecessary. The requirement to hold a public meeting described in 
Sec.  50.83(f) applies, as stated, to either an approval request for a 
partial site release or a license amendment application and, therefore 
applies to the submittals described in Sec. Sec.  50.83(c) and 
50.83(e).
    Comment: One reactor licensee and the NEI commented that for a 
release of impacted areas under the proposed partial release rule, 10 
CFR 50.59 will not apply because a license amendment would be required. 
Therefore, the wording in Sec.  50.83 should be modified to delete the 
reference to complete a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation for these release 
requests.
    Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters. Sec.  50.83(b) has 
been modified in the final rule to only require a Sec.  50.59 
evaluation for the case when a written release request is submitted.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    This final rule amends the NRC's requirements in 10 CFR part 2, 
subpart L, ``Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials 
and Operator Licensing Proceedings,'' 10 CFR part 20, ``Standards for 
Radiation Protection,'' and 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of 
Production and Utilization Facilities,'' as follows:

1. 10 CFR 2.1201

    This final rule amends 10 CFR 2.1201 by adding a new paragraph 
(a)(4) which permits the use of informal hearing procedures for 
amendments associated with partial site releases at nuclear power 
reactors. This change is needed in order to provide an opportunity for 
a hearing on a license amendment request for a partial site release. 
The staff believes that informal hearings are appropriate in this 
situation since the issues would be similar to the materials licensing 
issues that are currently subject to subpart L under Sec.  
2.1201(a)(1). It should be noted that the rule does not provide for 
license amendments to authorize partial site releases when there is no 
reasonable potential for residual radioactivity in the area to be 
released. Because there are no license amendments in these cases, there 
are no corresponding opportunities for hearings. However, the NRC will 
notice receipt of a licensee's proposal for a partial site release and 
make it available for public comment. The NRC will also hold a public 
meeting in the vicinity of the site to discuss the licensee's release 
approval request or license amendment application, as applicable.

2. 10 CFR 20.1401

    Paragraphs 20.1401(a) and (c) have been revised to expand the scope 
of radiological criteria for license termination to include the release 
of part of a facility or site for unrestricted use in accordance with 
Sec.  50.83. In 10 CFR part 20, the NRC provides standards for 
protection against radiation. These modifications are necessary because 
the NRC's regulations did not address cases when part of a facility or 
site is to be released for unrestricted use. The expansion in scope 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  20.1401 is related to the radiation dose limits 
to individual members of the public and to radiological criteria for 
license termination which are specified in 10 CFR part 20, subparts D 
and E, respectively.
    With respect to 10 CFR part 20, subpart D, the requirements 
specified set the annual dose limit for an individual member of the 
public at 1.0 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr). However, there are a number of more 
stringent dose standards applicable to power reactor licensees that 
must also be considered. These standards include the EPA environmental 
radiation standards incorporated in Sec.  20.1301(d), the subpart D 
compliance standards in Sec.  20.1302(b), the radiological effluent 
release objectives to maintain effluents ALARA in Appendix I to 10 CFR 
part 50, and any dose standards that may be established by special 
license conditions.
    A licensee performing a partial site release must continue to 
comply with the public dose limits and standards as they pertain to the 
area remaining under the license. In addition, the licensee must comply 
with the public dose limits for effluents entering the released

[[Page 19723]]

portion of the site. A licensee must demonstrate that moving its site 
boundary closer to the operating facility would not result in a dose to 
a member of the public that exceeds these criteria. If residual 
radioactivity exists in the area to be released for unrestricted use, 
the dose caused by the release must be considered along with that from 
the licensee's facility, as well as, in the case of the EPA's 
environmental radiation standard (40 CFR part 190) incorporated in 
Sec.  20.1301(d), that from any other uranium fuel cycle operation in 
the area, for example, a facility licensed under 10 CFR part 72, to 
determine compliance with the above standards. As a consequence, a 
partial site release for unrestricted use that contains residual 
radioactivity may have to meet a standard less stringent than the 
radiological criteria of 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, because the 
combined dose from the partial site release and the dose from these 
other sources must meet the public dose limits and standards described 
above.
    With respect to 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, the scope applies to 
decommissioning reactor facilities. However, as currently written, it 
does not specifically apply to operating reactors. The reactor remains 
``operating'' until a licensee submits the certifications of permanent 
cessation of operations specified in Sec.  50.82(a)(1), when its status 
changes to ``decommissioning.''
    Radiological criteria for license termination at 10 CFR part 20, 
subpart E, limit radiation exposure to the ``average member of the 
critical group.'' The limit applicable to release for unrestricted use 
is 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), 
with additional reductions consistent with the ALARA principle. The 
determination of ALARA in these cases explicitly requires balancing 
reduction in radiation risk with the increase from other health and 
safety risks resulting from decontamination activities, such as adverse 
health impacts from transportation accidents that might occur if larger 
amounts of waste soil are shipped for disposal. The standard applies to 
doses resulting from ``residual radioactivity distinguishable from 
background radiation'' and includes doses from ground water sources of 
drinking water. The standard for unrestricted use at 10 CFR part 20, 
subpart E, does not include doses from effluents or direct radiation 
from continuing operations. However, as noted in the above section on 
public dose limits, the dose from these sources must be considered when 
demonstrating compliance with the radiological release criteria.
    Section 20.1401(c) limits additional cleanup following the NRC's 
termination of the license. Additional cleanup would only be required 
if new information reveals that the requirements of subpart E were not 
met and a significant threat to public health and safety remains from 
residual radioactivity. Similarly, the rule applies to portions of the 
site released for use within the scope of the criteria by which the 
Commission may require additional cleanup on the basis of new 
information received following the release.
    The rule is intended to apply subpart E to power reactor licensees, 
both operating and decommissioning, that have not received approval of 
the LTP. Because an LTP is required for license termination under 
restricted conditions (Sec.  20.1403(d)) or alternate criteria (Sec.  
20.1404(a)(4)), only the ``unrestricted use'' option would be available 
to licensees for a partial site release before they receive approval of 
the LTP.
    Section 20.1402 specifies the radiological criteria to be used to 
determine that a site is acceptable for unrestricted use. This final 
rule does not require an analysis to demonstrate that the area to be 
released meets the criteria of Sec.  20.1402 for cases when the 
licensee is able to demonstrate that there is no reasonable potential 
for residual radioactivity in the area to be released. In these cases, 
compliance with Sec.  20.1402 is demonstrated by providing 
documentation of an evaluation of the site to identify areas of 
potential or known sources of radioactive material. The evaluation must 
conclude that the area is non-impacted and there is no reasonable 
potential for residual radioactivity. Acceptable guidance describing 
the performance of this demonstration is contained in draft NUREG-1575, 
``Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual 
(MARSSIM).''
    For areas classified as impacted, the rule requires a license 
amendment that includes a demonstration of compliance with Sec.  
20.1402 for the area that is released for unrestricted use.
    This amendment to part 20, subpart E, revises Sec. Sec.  20.1401(a) 
and (c) and adds the release of part of a facility or site for 
unrestricted use to the provisions and scope of 10 CFR part 20, subpart 
E.

3. 10 CFR 50.2

    Paragraph Sec.  50.2 is amended to add definitions of ``Historical 
Site Assessment,'' ``Impacted Areas,'' and ``Non-impacted Areas.'' 
Clear definitions of these terms, which are also defined in draft 
NUREG-1575, ``Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation 
Manual (MARSSIM),'' are critical to implementing the amended 
regulations.
    In order for a licensee to adequately demonstrate compliance with 
the radiological criteria for license termination in 10 CFR part 20, 
subpart E, the licensee must evaluate its site to identify areas of 
potential or known sources of radioactive material and classify those 
areas according to the potential for radioactive contamination. The 
evaluation is known as a historical site assessment. The historical 
site assessment is an investigation to collect information describing a 
site's complete history from the start of site activities to the 
present time. Information collected will typically include site files, 
monitoring data, and event investigations, as well as interviews with 
current or previous employees to collect firsthand information.
    The MARSSIM approach in evaluating HSA data for the purposes of 
classifying an area prescribes that process knowledge of events or 
conditions that may have led to residual contamination be used in 
combination with analytical information such as survey data. This 
approach is discussed in the ``Comments on the Proposed Rule'' section 
of this notice. The HSA assessment process results in classifying areas 
according to the potential for containing residual radioactivity. Areas 
that have no reasonable potential for residual radioactivity in excess 
of natural background or fallout levels are classified as non-impacted 
areas. Areas with some reasonable potential for residual radioactivity 
in excess of natural background or fallout levels are classified as 
impacted areas. Further discussion regarding the meaning and use of 
these terms is contained in NUREG-1575, ``Multi-Agency Radiation Survey 
and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM).''

4. 10 CFR 50.75

    This final rule amends Sec.  50.75 to add a new paragraph (g)(4). 
The recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  50.75(g)(4) are necessary to 
ensure that potential dose contributions associated with partial site 
releases can be adequately considered at the time of any subsequent 
partial releases and at the time of license termination. Records to be 
retained include the licensed site area (including property acquired or 
used for the purpose of receiving, possessing, or using licensed 
materials), licensed activities carried out on the property acquired or 
used, and information demonstrating licensee compliance with the 
radiological release

[[Page 19724]]

criteria at the time of the partial site release.
    In Sec.  50.75(c), the NRC defines the amount of financial 
assurance required for decommissioning power reactors. There is no 
provision to adjust the amount to account for the costs of a partial 
site release. While a partial site release may reduce the cost of 
decommissioning for the remainder of the site, the NRC is not reducing 
the required amount for the following reasons. Costs incurred for 
purposes other than reduction of residual radioactivity to permit 
release of the property and termination of the license are not included 
in the amount required for decommissioning financial assurance. A 
partial site release may incur costs that do not fit the definition of 
decommissioning. Therefore, an evaluation of the costs would be 
necessary to determine what adjustment, if any, is appropriate. In 
addition, the cost of a partial site release is expected to be a small 
fraction of the cost of decommissioning. Such a small adjustment can be 
considered within the uncertainty of the amount specified in Sec.  
50.75(c) and does not provide a compelling reason to undertake the 
technical justification of adding a generically applicable adjustment 
factor to the requirement.
    In Sec.  50.75(g), the NRC requires keeping records of information 
important to decommissioning. Currently, there are three categories of 
information required: (1) Spills resulting in significant contamination 
after cleanup; (2) as-built drawings of structures and equipment in 
restricted areas; and (3) cost estimates and funding methods. 
Information on structures and land that were included as part of the 
site is also important to decommissioning in order to ensure that the 
dose effects from partial releases are adequately accounted for when 
the license is terminated.
    Records relevant to decommissioning must be retained until the 
license is terminated. The rule requires a licensee to identify its 
licensed facility and site, as defined in the original license 
application, to include a map, and to record any additions to or 
deletions from the licensed site after original licensing, along with 
records of the radiological conditions of any partial site releases. As 
previously noted, these records will ensure that potential dose 
contributions associated with partial site releases can be adequately 
considered at the time of any subsequent partial releases and at the 
time of license termination. As a result of comments received on the 
proposed rule, the implementation date for the changes made to the 
recordkeeping requirements at 10 CFR 50.75(g)(4) has been modified in 
the final rule to provide a 6-month implementation period.
    The purpose of the License Termination Rule (LTR) (61 FR 39301, 
July 29, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 39091, July 21, 1997) and 10 CFR 
50.82 is to ensure that any residual radioactivity associated with 
licensed activity is within the radiological release requirements of 10 
CFR part 20, subpart E, at the time the license is terminated. Although 
not previously codified, the requirement to maintain records of the 
entire licensed site as defined in the original license, along with 
subsequent modifications to the licensed site, clarifies the intent of 
the LTR and is necessary to ensure that potential dose contributions 
from the entire area can be adequately considered in demonstrating 
compliance with the release criteria. The recordkeeping applies to all 
licensees, including those who modify the licensed site by releasing a 
part of their site prior to license termination. It is expected that 
licensees are maintaining property records in order to comply with the 
LTR at the time of license termination and, therefore, these 
recordkeeping requirements do not establish new policies, standards, or 
requirements not already inherent to compliance with the radiological 
release criteria of the LTR.

5. 10 CFR 50.82

    With respect to section 50.82(a)(9)(ii) a new subparagraph (H) is 
added to include the identification of parts of the site previously 
released for use with the information listed in the LTP. Section 
50.82(a)(9) requires the submittal of an application for license 
termination that includes an LTP. Section 50.82(a)(11) requires that 
the NRC make a determination that the final survey and associated 
documentation provided by a licensee demonstrates that the site is 
suitable for release at the time the license is terminated. These 
sections codify the NRC's views that certain information is required to 
evaluate the adequacy of a licensee's compliance with the radiological 
criteria for license termination in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, and the 
license termination criteria are applicable to the entire site. 
However, because the LTP is not required until 2 years before the 
anticipated date of license termination, a licensee may perform a 
partial site release before it submits the necessary information. The 
information required when the LTP is submitted refers to the ``site.'' 
It is not clear that a licensee could be required to include the areas 
released because they no longer are part of the ``site.'' The NRC is 
concerned that a licensee could adopt partial site releases as a 
piecemeal approach to relinquish responsibility for a part of its site 
without going through the license termination process and without 
ensuring that the release criteria of 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, are 
met.
    With respect to section 50.82(a)(11)(ii), this final rule clarifies 
that the final radiation survey shall include an assessment of the dose 
contribution associated with portions of the site that have been 
released before approval of the license termination plan. The objective 
is to ensure that the entire area meets the radiological release 
requirements of 10 CFR part 20, subpart E (0.25 mSv/yr(25 mrem/yr) 
reduced to ALARA) at the time the license is terminated. This amendment 
to Sec.  50.82(a)(11)(ii) requires that the final radiation survey and 
associated documentation include an assessment of dose contributions 
associated with any parts previously released for use in demonstrating 
that the facility and site meet the radiological release criteria in 
accordance with 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. Although no further surveys 
of previously released areas are anticipated, the dose assessment must 
account for possible dose contributions associated with previous 
releases in order to ensure that the entire area meets the radiological 
release requirements of 10 CFR part 20, subpart E (0.25 mSv/yr (25 
mrem/yr) reduced to ALARA) at the time the license is terminated.

6. 10 CFR 50.83

    This rule adds a new section Sec.  50.83, separate from the current 
decommissioning and license termination rules, that identifies the 
criteria and regulatory framework for power reactor licensees that seek 
to release part of a facility or site for unrestricted use at any time 
before NRC approval of its LTP. This section is also required because 
NRC regulations do not address cases in which the NRC may release 
portions of the site or facility before the approval of the license 
termination plan.
    The rule requires NRC approval for a partial site release. The 
approval process under which the property will be released depends on 
the potential for residual radioactivity from plant operations 
remaining in the area to be released. First, for proposed release areas 
classified as non-impacted and, therefore, having no reasonable 
potential for residual radioactivity, the licensee will be allowed to 
submit a letter containing specific information

[[Page 19725]]

and requesting approval of the release. Because there is no reasonable 
potential for residual radioactivity in these cases, the NRC will 
approve the release of the property by letter after determining that 
the licensee has met the criteria of the rule. Guidance for 
demonstrating that a proposed release area is non-impacted is contained 
in NUREG-1575, ``Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation 
Manual (MARSSIM).'' The NRC would generally not perform radiological 
surveys and sampling of a non-impacted area. However, if the NRC 
determines that surveys and sampling are needed to verify that a 
proposed release area is properly classified as ``non-impacted,'' they 
would be performed as part of NRC's inspection process. Second, for 
areas classified as impacted and having some reasonable potential for 
residual radioactivity, the licensee will submit the required 
information in the form of a license amendment for NRC approval. The 
proposed amendment will also include the licensee's demonstration of 
compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use 
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402.
    Licensees may find it beneficial to review their survey plans and 
design with the NRC staff before performing the surveys. As warranted, 
the NRC will conduct parallel and/or confirmatory radiation surveys and 
sampling to ensure that the licensee's conclusions are adequate.
    Because an LTP is required for license termination under restricted 
conditions (Sec.  20.1403(d)) or alternate criteria (Sec.  
20.1404(a)(4)), only the ``unrestricted use'' option is available to 
licensees for a partial site release prior to LTP approval.
    The rule also requires a licensee to evaluate the effect of 
releasing the property to ensure that the licensee will continue to 
comply with all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements 
that may be impacted by the release of property and changes to the site 
boundary. This includes, for example, regulations in 10 CFR parts 20, 
50, 72, and 100. In those instances involving license amendments, 
licensees are also required to provide a supplement to the existing 
environmental report to address the planned release. This requirement 
is similar to the requirement of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(G).
    The rule provides for public participation. The NRC will notice 
receipt of a licensee's proposal for a partial site release, regardless 
of the amount of residual radioactivity involved, and make it available 
for public comment. The NRC also will hold a public meeting in the 
vicinity of the site to discuss the licensee's release approval request 
or license amendment application, as applicable.

Referenced Documents

    Copies of NUREG-1575 and NUREG-1757 may be examined, and/or copied 
for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
These documents are also accessible on the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical 
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with 
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC 
standardizes the process for allowing a licensee to release part of its 
reactor facility or site for unrestricted use before the NRC approves 
the LTP. This action does not constitute the establishment of a 
standard that establishes generally applicable requirements, and the 
use of a voluntary consensus standard is not applicable.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

    The Commission has determined that under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 
subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 that this rule is not a major Federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment 
and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
    There are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with this action. This action does not involve non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, the NRC expects that no significant environmental impact 
will result from this rule.
    The Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact 
on which this determination is based are available for inspection at 
the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. 
Single copies of the Environmental Assessment and the finding of no 
significant impact are available from Harry Tovmassian, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-3092.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule contains information collection requirements that 
are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget, approval number 3150-0011.
    The burden to the public for these information collections is 
estimated to average 582 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
information collection. Send comments on any aspect of this information 
collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the 
Records Management Branch (T-6 E6), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to [email protected]; and to 
the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-
10202, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC, 
20503.

Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a request for information or an information collection 
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid 
OMB control number.

Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission has prepared a Regulatory Analysis on this 
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the 
alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available 
for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD. Single copies of the Regulatory Analysis are available 
from Harry Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 
(301) 415-3092.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power 
plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the 
scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out 
in 10 CFR 2.810.

[[Page 19726]]

Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this 
rule; and therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this final 
rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would 
impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
    Section 50.75(g) of the final rule, which specifies new information 
collection and reporting requirements is not subject to the backfit 
rule, 10 CFR 50.109, inasmuch as information collection and reporting 
requirements are not within the purview of the backfit rule. The 
remaining requirements in this rule are voluntary and pertain only to 
licensees choosing to request a partial site release prior to approval 
of their license termination plan and are also not subject to the 
provisions of the backfit rule.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a 
major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 
material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear 
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex 
discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste 
treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 20

    Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear 
material, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and 
health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material, 
Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 50

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

    For the reasons set forth 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. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting 
the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 20, and 50.

PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS AND 
ISSUANCE OF ORDERS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs.161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87-615, 76 Stat. 
409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat.1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.
    Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 
105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. 
L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(f)); sec. 102, 
Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 
88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 
2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183i, 189, 68 
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 
2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L. 97-
415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also 
issued under secs. 161 b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 
955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (i), (o), 2236, 
2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Section 2.205(j) 
also issued under Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by 
section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 
note). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-
190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 
2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 
2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also issued 
under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 
10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 
936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133), and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 
and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued 
under 5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 
Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 
(42 U.S.C. 10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 
955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also issued under sec. 184 (42 
U.S.C. 2234) and sec. 189, 68 stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A 
also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 
2135).


0
2. In Sec.  2.1201, paragraph (a)(4) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  2.1201  Scope of subpart.

    (a) * * *
    (4) The amendment of a Part 50 license to release part of a power 
reactor facility or site for unrestricted use in accordance with Sec.  
50.83. Subpart L hearings for the partial site release plan, if 
conducted, must be complete before the property is released for use.
* * * * *

PART 20--STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION

0
3. 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, sec. 1701, 
106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 
2134, 2201, 2232, 2236, 2297f), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).


0
4. In Sec.  20.1401, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  20.1401  General provisions and scope.

    (a) The criteria in this subpart apply to the decommissioning of 
facilities licensed under Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 63, 70, and 72 of 
this chapter, and release of part of a facility or site for 
unrestricted use in accordance with Sec.  50.83 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, 61, 63), the criteria apply 
only to ancillary surface facilities that support radioactive waste 
disposal activities. The criteria do not apply to uranium and thorium 
recovery facilities already subject to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 or 
to uranium solution extraction facilities.
* * * * *
    (c) After a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated 
in accordance with the criteria in this subpart, or after part of a 
facility or site has been released for unrestricted use in accordance 
with Sec.  50.83 of this chapter and in accordance with the criteria in 
this subpart, the Commission will require additional cleanup only, if 
based on new information, it determines that the criteria of this 
subpart were not met and residual radioactivity remaining at the site 
could result in significant threat to public health and safety.
* * * * *

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 
FACILITIES

0
5. 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, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83

[[Page 19727]]

Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 
2233, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 
as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
    Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951, as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 
U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 
Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 
91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 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 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).


0
6. Section 50.2 is amended by adding ``Historical site assessment,'' 
``Impacted areas,'' and ``Non-impacted areas'' in alphabetical order to 
read as follows:


Sec.  50.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Historical site assessment means the identification of potential, 
likely, or known sources of radioactive material and radioactive 
contamination based on existing or derived information for the purpose 
of classifying a facility or site, or parts thereof, as impacted or 
non-impacted.
    Impacted areas mean the areas with some reasonable potential for 
residual radioactivity in excess of natural background or fallout 
levels.
* * * * *
    Non-impacted areas mean the areas with no reasonable potential for 
residual radioactivity in excess of natural background or fallout 
levels.
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  50.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  50.8  Information collection requirements: OMB approval.

* * * * *
    (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in 
this part appear in Sec. Sec.  50.30, 50.33, 50.33a, 50.34, 50.34a, 
50.35, 50.36, 50.36a, 50.36b, 50.44, 50.46, 50.47, 50.48, 50.49, 50.54, 
50.55, 50.55a, 50.59, 50.60, 50.61, 50.62, 50.63, 50.64, 50.65, 50.66, 
50.68, 50.71, 50.72, 50.74, 50.75, 50.80, 50.82, 50.83, 50.90, 50.91, 
50.120, and Appendices A, B, E, G, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, Q, R, and S to 
this part.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  50.75, paragraph (g)(4) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  50.75  Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (4) Records of:
    (i) The licensed site area, as originally licensed, which must 
include a site map and any acquisition or use of property outside the 
originally licensed site area for the purpose of receiving, possessing, 
or using licensed materials;
    (ii) The licensed activities carried out on the acquired or used 
property; and
    (iii) The release and final disposition of any property recorded in 
paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section, the historical site assessment 
performed for the release, radiation surveys performed to support 
release of the property, submittals to the NRC made in accordance with 
Sec.  50.83, and the methods employed to ensure that the property met 
the radiological criteria of 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, at the time the 
property was released.

0
9. In Sec.  50.82, paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(H) is added and paragraph 
(a)(11)(ii) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  50.82  Termination of license.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (H) Identification of parts, if any, of the facility or site that 
were released for use before approval of the license termination plan.
* * * * *
    (11) * * *
    (ii) The final radiation survey and associated documentation, 
including an assessment of dose contributions associated with parts 
released for use before approval of the license termination plan, 
demonstrate that the facility and site have met the criteria for 
decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E.
* * * * *

0
10. A new Sec.  50.83 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  50.83  Release of part of a power reactor facility or site for 
unrestricted use.

    (a) Prior written NRC approval is required to release part of a 
facility or site for unrestricted use at any time before receiving 
approval of a license termination plan. Section 50.75 specifies 
recordkeeping requirements associated with partial release. Nuclear 
power reactor licensees seeking NRC approval shall--
    (1) Evaluate the effect of releasing the property to ensure that--
    (i) The dose to individual members of the public does not exceed 
the limits and standards of 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D;
    (ii) There is no reduction in the effectiveness of emergency 
planning or physical security;
    (iii) Effluent releases remain within license conditions;
    (iv) The environmental monitoring program and offsite dose 
calculation manual are revised to account for the changes;
    (v) The siting criteria of 10 CFR Part 100 continue to be met; and
    (vi) All other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements 
continue to be met.
    (2) Perform a historical site assessment of the part of the 
facility or site to be released; and
    (3) Perform surveys adequate to demonstrate compliance with the 
radiological criteria for unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 
for impacted areas.
    (b) For release of non-impacted areas, the licensee may submit a 
written request for NRC approval of the release if a license amendment 
is not otherwise required. The request submittal must include--
    (1) The results of the evaluations performed in accordance with 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section;
    (2) A description of the part of the facility or site to be 
released;
    (3) The schedule for release of the property;
    (4) The results of the evaluations performed in accordance with 
Sec.  50.59; and
    (5) A discussion that provides the reasons for concluding that the 
environmental impacts associated with the licensee's proposed release 
of the property will be bounded by appropriate previously issued 
environmental impact statements.
    (c) After receiving an approval request from the licensee for the 
release of a non-impacted area, the NRC shall--
    (1) Determine whether the licensee has adequately evaluated the 
effect of releasing the property as required by paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section;
    (2) Determine whether the licensee's classification of any release 
areas as non-impacted is adequately justified; and
    (3) Upon determining that the licensee's submittal is adequate, 
inform the licensee in writing that the release is approved.
    (d) For release of impacted areas, the licensee shall submit an 
application for amendment of its license for the release of the 
property. The application must include--

[[Page 19728]]

    (1) The information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) 
of this section;
    (2) The methods used for and results obtained from the radiation 
surveys required to demonstrate compliance with the radiological 
criteria for unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 20.1402; and
    (3) A supplement to the environmental report, under Sec.  51.53, 
describing any new information or significant environmental change 
associated with the licensee's proposed release of the property.
    (e) After receiving a license amendment application from the 
licensee for the release of an impacted area, the NRC shall--
    (1) Determine whether the licensee has adequately evaluated the 
effect of releasing the property as required by paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section;
    (2) Determine whether the licensee's classification of any release 
areas as non-impacted is adequately justified;
    (3) Determine whether the licensee's radiation survey for an 
impacted area is adequate; and
    (4) Upon determining that the licensee's submittal is adequate, 
approve the licensee's amendment application.
    (f) The NRC shall notice receipt of the release approval request or 
license amendment application and make the approval request or license 
amendment application available for public comment. Before acting on an 
approval request or license amendment application submitted in 
accordance with this section, the NRC shall conduct a public meeting in 
the vicinity of the licensee's facility for the purpose of obtaining 
public comments on the proposed release of part of the facility or 
site. The NRC shall publish a document in the Federal Register and in a 
forum, such as local newspapers, which is readily accessible to 
individuals in the vicinity of the site, announcing the date, time, and 
location of the meeting, along with a brief description of the purpose 
of the meeting.

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of April, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-9866 Filed 4-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P