LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES NATIONAL ENRICHMENT FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1
(No Transcript)
2
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions
Decommissioning Plan Review Process

• Rebecca Tadesse
• Branch Chief for Material Decommissioning
• Division of Waste Management and Environmental
  ProtectionOffice of Federal and State
  Materialsand Environmental Management
  ProgramsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory
  CommissionWashington, DC 20555

3
Purpose of Todays Meeting

• Discuss the Decommissioning Plan review process
• Discuss Restricted Use decommissioning Option
• Answer questions regarding the Decommissioning
  Plan review process

4
Key Messages

• Protect Public Health and Safety and the
  Environment
• To Date No decision has been made about the site
• There will be ample opportunity for Public input
  on the Decommissioning Plan

5
Decommissioning Plan Review Process

• v Acceptance review (90 days)
• Technical review (1 2 years)
• Consider public comments
• Request for Additional information, if necessary
• Approval of the Decommissioning Plan via license
  amendment

6
Decommissioning Plan Contents

• Site radiological status (characterization)
• Planned decommissioning activities
• Plan to ensure protection of workers and the
  environment
• Planned final radiation survey

7
Decommissioning Plan Contents

• Decommissioning cost estimate and funding
  mechanism
• Decommissioning Schedule
• Public input/institutional controls for
  restricted use sites

8
Public Awareness Activities

• Public Meetings
• Publicly-noticed meetings with the licensee
• Press Releases
• Federal Register Notices

9
NRCs Restricted UseDecommissioning Option

• Public Meeting
• December 5, 2006
• Newfield, NJ
• Robert L. Johnson, Senior Project Manager
• Division of Waste Management and Environmental
  Protection
• Office of Federal and State Materials and
  Environmental
• Management Programs
• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• Washington, DC 20555

10
Outline

• What is restricted use?
• When is a site initially eligible?
• How is protection ensured?
• How is protection sustained?
• What is a long-term control license?

11
What is restricted use decommissioning?

• NRCs regulations allow two options for
  decommissioning
• Unrestricted use
• Restricted use
• Restricted use
• Radioactive material remains onsite
• Institutional controls, engineered controls
  provide protection

12
When is a site initially eligible?

• Licensee required to justify
• Submit cost benefit analyses
• Compares removal costs to benefits
• Proposal must be as low as reasonably achievable
  (ALARA)
• ALARA is a universal concept in radiation
  protection
• Standard methods used

13
How does restricted use ensure protection?

• Limit exposure to regulatory requirements
• Restrict adverse land uses
• Legal restrictions (institutional controls)
• Physical restrictions (fences, signs)
• Mitigate adverse natural processes (engineered
  controls/cover)
• Shielding cover limits radiation
• Erosion cover protects shielding

14
How is protection sustained over long time
periods?

• Stringent regulatory requirements
• Defense-in-depth approach
• Institutional controls
• Legally enforceable
• Durable (State or Federal government)
• Engineered controls
• Robust designed for maximum natural events
• Reduce reliance on monitoring and maintenance

15
How is protection sustained over long time
periods? (cont.)

• Defense-in-depth approach
• Licensee monitoring and maintenance
• Independent oversight and backup
• Sufficient funding (trust fund)
• Dose limit with institutional controls ¼ of
  public dose limit)
• Dose cap if institutional controls fail (public
  dose limit)SAFETY NET

16
What is an NRC long-term control license?

• An NRC legally enforceable and durable
  institutional control
• Last resort option for institutional controls,
  independent third party
• All restricted use requirements must be met
• Long term control is not a new concept

17
What is a long-term control license? (cont.)

• License conditions require land use restrictions
  and activities
• Licensee responsible for restrictions,
  monitoring, maintenance
• NRC responsible for inspections, enforcement, and
  backup

18
Conclusions

• Stringent regulatory requirements for protection
  of public health and safety
• Shieldalloy must demonstrate compliance
• NRCs review will determine if requirements have
  been met

19
Additional Information

• NRCs Decommissioning Guidance, Vol 1, Rev 2
• Section 17.7 and Appendix M
• Web site http//www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-colle
  ctions/nuregs/staff/sr1757/v1/
• NRC conference papers (handouts available)
• Waste Management 05
• American Nuclear Society 06

20
SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
DECOMMISSIONING

• Information Meeting
• December 5, 2006
• Newfield, New Jersey
• Ken Kalman
• Project Manager
• Materials Decommissioning Section
• Division of Waste Management and Environmental
  ProtectionOffice of Federal and State
  Materialsand Environmental Management
  ProgramsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory
  CommissionWashington, DC 20555

21
OVERVIEW

• Operations
• Decommissioning Plan Submittals and Review
• Decommissioning Proposal
• Projected Timeframe
• Get Information /Submit Comments

22
Location of Shieldalloy Site
23
Aerial Photo of Shieldalloy Site
24
OPERATIONS

• 1955-1998 - Shieldalloy used niobium ore
  (pyrochlore)
• Contained natural uranium and thorium in
  concentrations that we regulate
• Licensed to possess uranium (45,000 kg) and
  thorium (303,050 kg)

25
OPERATIONS

• Generated slag (18,000 m3) and baghouse dust
  (15,000 m3) containing uranium and thorium
• August 2001 - Shieldalloy notified NRC that it
  ceased operations and intended to decomission
• Within its licensed limit for uranium and thorium
  
• Plans to sell slag and baghouse dust for uranium
  content failed

26
Northwest Corner of Slag Pile
27
NRC Inspector Checking Exposure Ratesof Slag Pile
28
Particulate Bags
29
SUBMITTALS AND REVIEW

• Acceptance Review / Detailed Technical Review
• August 2002 - Decommissioning Plan submitted
• February 2003 - Decommissioning Plan rejected
• May 2004 - NRC provided interim guidance on Long
  Term Control License to Shieldalloy

30
SUBMITTALS AND REVIEW

• October 2005 - Revised Decommissioning Plan
  submitted.
• January 2006 - Revised Decommissioning Plan
  rejected
• Dose Modeling
• Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection
• Long term Control Approach and Institutional
  Controls
• Financial Assurance

31
SUBMITTALS AND REVIEW

• March 2006 - Open to the public meeting held to
  discuss deficiencies
• June 2006 - SMC submitted supplemental
  information
• October 2006 - Decommissioning Plan, as
  supplemented, was accepted for detailed technical
  review.

32
SUBMITTALS AND REVIEW

• November 16, 2006 - Federal Register Notice
  Opportunity to Request a Hearing (January 16,
  2007) and comment (by March 16, 2007)
• December 5, 2006 - Decommissioning Information
  Meeting
• December 12, 2006 - Environmental Impact Scoping
  Meeting

33
DECOMMISSIONING PROPOSAL

• 67.7 acres for metallurgical activities and 19.8
  non-contiguous acres of unaffected farmland
• Process area comprised of parking lots,
  administrative offices, and manufacturing
  buildings
• Impacted buildings remediated for unrestricted
  use

34
Process and Warehouse Buildings
35
DECOMMISSIONING PROPOSAL

• Storage yard contains slag, baghouse dust,
  excavated soils and other similar materials
• Slag (18,000 m3) and baghouse dust (15,000 m3)
  contain uranium, thorium and associated decay
  products.
• Meets NRC exposure limits

36
Thermoluminescent DosimeterSouthern Boundary
Fence
37
NRC Inspector Checking Exposure Rates
38
Monitoring Well
39
DECOMMISSIONING PROPOSAL

• Shieldalloy considered license continuation,
  offsite disposal and license termination, and
  onsite stabilization and long term control
• Cost/Benefit analysis indicated onsite
  stabilization and long term control

40
DECOMMISSIONING PROPOSAL

• Release most of the site for unrestricted use
• Consolidate licensable material in storage yard
• Minimize exposure with engineered barrier
• Long term maintenance and control
• Financial assurance

41
DECOMMISSIONING PROPOSAL

• Shieldalloy dose analyses are 1 mrem per year for
  unrestricted areas and 1-21 mrem per year for
  restricted areas
• Natural background radiation is 360 millirem per
  year
• NRC staff to review Shieldalloys estimates and
  conduct an independent dose analysis

42
PROJECTED TIMEFRAME

• 2007 - NRC staff completes its detailed technical
  review and Safety Evaluation Report
• 2008 - NRC staff completes Environmental Impact
  Statement and licensing decision
• 2011 Shieldalloy completes its activities (if
  proposal is approved)
• 2012 NRC completes licensing action

43
INFORMATION

• Newfield Public Library
• NRC Public Web Page - http//www.nrc.gov
• Decommissioning Web Page - http//www.nrc.gov/info
  -finder/decommissioning/index.html
• Shieldalloy Web Page http//www.nrc.gov/info-fin
  der/decommissioning/complex/shieldalloy-metallurgi
  cal-corporation-smc-.html

44
COMMENTS

• Request Hearing by January 16, 2007
• Submit Comments by March 16, 2007
• By mail at
• Chief, Rules and Directives Branch
• Division of Administrative Services
• Mailstop T-6D59
• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• Washington, DC 20555-0001
• E-mail at ShieldalloyDP_at_nrc.gov

45

• QUESTIONS???