Page 129 - Beyond Decommissioning

110 Beyond Decommissioning

Table 5.1 Continued
buildings, there is achieved through
further economic consolidation of spent
benefit of reduced fuel into a single area.
cost of demolition, Regarding remaining
but the additional buildings, there is
cost to maintain further economic
these buildings benefit of reduced cost
safe should be of demolition, but the
considered. The additional cost to
major incentive to maintain these
pursuing this buildings safe should be
option is to reuse considered. The major
the buildings for incentive to pursuing
nonnuclear this option is to convert
purposes. facilities and buildings
for new nuclear
applications or
nonnuclear applications
compatible with
residual radioactive
levels

More recently, NRC stated that licensees at decommissioning NRC-licensed facil-
ities could use “more realistic scenarios” for calculating doses for site release. Such
scenarios must be based on the “reasonably foreseeable land use” (RFLU) for the
facility, once decommissioned. NRC suggested that “reasonable foreseeable” means
reasonable use up to 100 years after site release. In one case, the Kiski Valley Pollution
Control Authority site in Vandergrift, PA., NRC approved that no further
decommissioning action should be taken, based on a dose assessment including a
range of RFLU scenarios.
Two intermediate cases somewhere between restricted and unrestricted release are
presented in US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2006). In fact, the NRC report
highlights the benefits of using realistic scenarios to demonstrate compliance with
unrestricted release requirements.

Two good examples of the use of realistic scenarios are the Nuclear Fuel Services
(NFS) site in Erwin, TN and the FMRI, Inc (Fansteel) site in Muskogee, OK. The
NFS staff combined two realistic scenarios to determine radionuclide-specific
Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs, in IAEA terminology: clearance
levels or criteria). The licensee demonstrated that the shallow, contaminated ground-
water would not be used as a drinking water source in any case. The licensee then
demonstrated that the most likely use of the site at license termination was as indus-
trial site. It also acknowledged that there was considerable suburban development in
the area. The licensee performed dose calculations for the facility using an industrial
scenario, as well as a suburban resident scenario. The licensee then chose the lower