ML20056H597
| ML20056H597 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/24/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-235, NUDOCS 9309100165 | |
| Download: ML20056H597 (34) | |
Text
VMMMMMMMMMMMMMM/
fMA
.. =cu
~v
'1 C D T'J l ri3 Png l
/
h f**%g?g p
y.
e u
o DL%DGJ*,.yCQCaocGgy g g (, q q O-
- j
\\...../
August 24, 1993 POLICY ISSUE sECY_g3-23s (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
COMMUNICATION WITH EPA ABOUT POTENTIAL TRANSFER GF SAFETY LIGHT CORPORATION SITE TO EPA FOR SUPERVISION OF CLEANUP; P0TENTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF OUTSTANDING ORDERS' i
PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of the staff's plans to consult with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about transferring the Safety Light Corporation (SLC) site at Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, to EPA, to supervise site remediation under Superfund.
If EPA agrees to accept the site, the staff, upon EPA's acceptance, would take further steps to support EPA's activities.
For example, the staff may consider actions such as withdrawing the staff's outstanding orders requiring site characterization, decontamination, and decommissioning, if necessary, to avoid potentially inconsistent or duplicative requirements.
l
SUMMARY
1 1
The staff believcs that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should transfer the SLC site to EPA, for consideration under Superfund, in order to accelerate cleanup of the Bloomsburg site, minimize total Federal resources devoted to l
litigation to compel remediation, and maximize licensee resources devoted to site cleanup.
If EPA agrees to consider the site for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL), for remedial action under Superfund, the staff would consider appropriate actions to support EPA's activities.
For example, the Contacts: John Austin, NMSS/LLWM 504-2560 NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY Patricia Vacca, NMSS/IMNS 504-2615 In view of the ongoing litigation involving related matters, copies of this document and the attachments hereto are being served upon the Licensing Board, Safety Light Corporation, USR Industries, Inc., and other parties as indicated on the attached service list.
9309100165 930824
-(()k PDR SECY
\\
93-235 PDR 1
l Y
S Mff5SSSS$5SS
The Commissioners staff may consider actions such as withdrawing the March 1989, August 1989, and February 1992, orders related to characterization, decontamination, and decommissioning of the Bloomsburg site (Bloomsburg orders), if necessary, to avoid potentially inconsistent or duplicative requirements.
The potential advantages and disadvantages of this proposed action are discussed infra at pages 5 through 7.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the NRC's decommissioning program for nuclear facilities, the staff periodically encounters contaminated facilities that pose special problems in terms of completing decommissioning actions in a timely and effective manner.
Most of these sites are listed in NRC's Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP), which was most recently updated in SECY-93-179.
The staff has developed amendments (58 FR 4099, January 13,1993) to existing regulations to facilitate timely decommissioning as part of the SDMP, in conjunction with site-specific actions to compel decommissioning.
Although NRC has sufficient authority to enforce existing regulations related to decommissioning under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), use of this authority may require a substantial amount of NRC effort, especially if a licensee or responsible party challenges an order before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) or Federal court, as will be discussed later.
In such cases, it may be advantageous to NRC and the Federal Gc.ernment to transfer these problem facilities to EPA for consideration of remediation under the Superfund Program, where resources from all potentially responsible parties might become available for site remediation.
provides a general overview of EPA's site remediation process under Superfund.
i i
The Commission previously considered staff recommendations to establish procedures for transferring sites from NRC to EPA, for consideration under the Superfund program, in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
In a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) concerning SECY-89-224, dated August 22. 1989, the Commission directed that the use of Superfund should only be pursued as a last-resort remedy, after it has become clear that the Commission has no other options i
available to achieve protection of the public health and safety.
In the same SRM, the Commission stated that it will decide whether to pursue transfer of sites to EPA on a case-by-case basis, or through a memorandum of understanding. The March 16, 1992, Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and NRC explicitly excludes matters arising under CERCLA.
In a subsequent SRM (M89122]A, dated January 21,1990), concerning the briefing by the staff on December 21, 1989, the Commission rejected the staff's recommendation to pursue discussions with EPA on the developr..ent of a i
protocol governing the application of Superfund to contaminated sites.
Instead, the Commission directed the staf f to first consult with the Commission if the need arises at any particular site. The Commission requested that any such consultation on a specific site be supported by a detailed discussion of the circumstances at the given site, the reason (s) that existing regulatory authority is inadequate, and the objectives that would be l
f The Commissioners,
served by the application of Superfund to the site.
In addition, the i
Commission directed the staff to provide an analysis of:
(1) the cleanup standard that would apply under Superfund and the difference (s) between that standard and the AEA standard; (2) the rights and authorities that the State would have if Superfund were extended to the site; and (3) the rights and authorities that private citizens would have to sue the Federal Government or the licensee (s), using the citizen suit provisions of Superfund.
This requested analysis is provided below, in support of transferring the Bloomsburg site to EPA.
DISCUSSION:
Circumstances at the Site:
The approximately 40,500-square meter (10-acre) SLC site adjacent to the Susquehanna River in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, contains about 17 buildings i
used for radioactive work, which began in the late 1940's.
In early work, the principal radionuclide in use was radium-226 (226Ra), a material not regulated by the A nmic Energy Commission (AEC).' Later, AEg-licensed work involved the use of m radionuclides, includin cesium-137 (' Cs), and americium-241 (2g tritium ( H), strontium-90 ("Sr),
Am). At this time, the buildings, soil, and ground w principally "Sr, 'ger are contgminated with various radionuclides, Cs, 3H, and Ra.
Very little information is available 26 jdentifyingwhenthecontaminationoccurred.
From about 1968 to the present, H has oeen the primary radionuclide used onsite; it is used in the i
manufacture and distribution of self-luminous products (e.g., exit signs and aircraft markers). The SLC site is on the SDr!P list for increased NRC attention, to ensure timely and effective decommissioning of the site, and is further described on pages A-177 through A-183 in Appendix A to SECY-93-179.
The staff is currently in litigation with SLC and other companies (hereafter called the " Corporations" or " Licensees") that the staff contends are the successors to United States Radium Corporation, whic licensescoveringactivitiesattheBloomsburgsite.goriginallyheldthe This litigation results from hearing requests prompted by the staff's issuance of three orders related to site characterization, decontamination, or decommissioning, issued in March 1989, August 1989, and February 1992, and the staff's denial of SLC's applications to renew two of its licenses, based on a failure to comply with the financial assurance requirements for decommissioning, contained in 10 CFR Part 30. A fourth order, issued in January 1993, prohibits transfer of assets and requires that the status quo be maintained. describes the 1
2 Radium-226 is a naturally-occurring radioactive material, previously used at the Bloomsburg site, which is not subject a NRC authority.
3 On August 13, 1993, the ASLB issued an Order in which it concluded
"... that the NRC has regulatory jurisdiction over USR Industries and its four wholly owned subsidiaries, USR Lighting, Inc., USR Chemical Products, Inc., USR Metals, Inc., and U. S. Natural Resources, Inc."
j The Commissioners Licensees' active licenses and summarizes the provisions of the staff's denials nd ordcrs.
i The litigation, which began in 1989, is continuing at this time.
During the first-half of 1993, the parties tried unsuccessfully to settle the litigation.
The staff expects hearings to commence later this year and, with appeals to the Commission and the courts expected, to continue for several years. This i
litigation is not only time-consuming, but it also involves the expenditure of substantial resources by NRC and the Licensees. As indicated in Enclosure 2, the Licensees, both individually and collectively, have modest financial resources and are unable today to provide financial assurance for decommissioning.
The Licensees have estimated decommissioning costs of up to $20,000,000.'
The information provided to the staff gives no assurance that the Licensees' j
financial situation will improve sufficiently to allow them to pay for decommissioning. Therefore, even if the staff prevails in the license renewal denials and ordering specific actions related to decommissioning, it is unlikely that the Licensees will be able to pay the large anticipated expense i
for decommissioning the Bloomsburg site.
l l
The Licensees have identified, as a potential source of additional funds for decommissioning, their long-standing litigation against their insurance companies.
In that litigation, the Licensees seek to obtain a declaratory judgment that their insurance carriers are liable for certain claims, including claims related to the Bloomsburg site. However, the Licensees' i
success in that litigation is uncertain and speculative.
Further, even if they are successful, it is not clear that they would receive sufficient funds to decommission the Bloomsburg site.
In addition, the Licensees have indicated + hat their insurance litigation is subject to competing claims, so e
that the amount of any proceeds that may become available for decommissioning cannot be reliably predicted. Moreover, the staff has been informed that most of the Licensees' remaining insurance carriers (those with whom the Licensees have not yet reached a financial settlement) are in bankruptcy.
EPA conducted a Preliminary Assessment of the Bloomsburg site in July 1991 and concluded that the site was a medium priority for consideration under Superfund.
As such, EPA is required to conduct a site inspection.
In early 1993, the staff contacted EPA-Region III to inquire whether the inspection was conducted.
(NRC staff stated that it was not requesting EPA action, but rather inquiring, as a follow-up to EPA's 1991 Preliminary Assessment, as part of its analysis, as requested by the Commission.) EPA-Region III staff stated that no site inspection was conducted, but that EPA is preparing to score the site, using the Hazard Ranking System, over the next several months.
EPA staff committed to keep the NRC staff apprised of any progress in EPA's consideration of the site for remediation under Superfund.
Letter dated January 11, 1991, from Jack Miller, President of SLC, to Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
h
The Commissioners,
In addition, EPA staff, several EPA contractors, and representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) participated in the staff's May 1993 meeting with the Licensees and their proposed contractor to discuss site characterization issues.
The NRC staff is providing information and documents, as requested by EPA and its contractors, and is keeping both EPA and PADER informed of the staff's actions in this case.
Based on informal communications with EPA regional staff, the NRC staff understands that EPA does not view the Bloomsburg site as warranting immediate remedial action under Superfund.
i Existing Regulatory Authority:
In this case, the staff does not believe that NRC's regulatory authority under AEA is inadequate, but that the Licensees will not be able to carry out NRC's orders. As indicated in their responses to the staff's December 1990, and January 1991, Demands for Information, the Licensees' relatively insubstantial financial condition will be exacerbated by prolonged litigation through NRC's administrative process and the Federal courts. Moreover, at the conclusion of the litigation, the Licensees may have even fewer resources than they have today. As a result, the staff expects that the Licensees will not be technically or financially capable of conducting the decommissioning actions required to prepare the site for release for unrastricted use, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 30.
Thus, even if NRC uses its authority to compel decommissioning of the Bloomsburg site, the staff expects that the Licensees are likely to be unable to comply and that the site will eventually be referred to EPA for cleanup under Superfund.
Objectives of Proposal-Since the staff believes thct the Licensees will not be able to fund decommissioning adequately, transferring the Bloomsburg site to EPA now, rather than after all NRC litigation has been completed, would conserve Licensee and NRC resources and accelerate the ultimate decommissioning of the Bloomsburg site.
Some of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this proposal are outlined below.
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES EPA's early involvement could reduce the total amount of Federal
=
Government resources used in litigation.
Even if the NRC litigation results in a finding that the staff's orders and its denials of the licenses were appropriate and the Bloomsburg site is then transferred to EPA, EPA may have to re-litigate some of the same or similar issues (e.g., the responsibilities of USR Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries), and NRC's expenditures may prove to be of little value.
Transfer of the site to EPA may reduce the delay before physical progress in remediation occurs at the Bloomsburg site. Although remediation may not be initiated for several years after transfer as a result of the Superfund process and remedial actions with higher priorities, there is little or no likelihood that progress in
I i
The Commissioners i remediation will occur through actions by the Licensees before a transfer of the site to EPA.
Delay in transfer of the site to EPA while i
awaiting the conclusion of NRC litigation will only further delay site remediation.
EPA has been granted explicit authority to assign liability to i
"Potentially Responsible Parties" (PRPs), encourage the PRPs to remediate a site, and, if necessary, assess the PRPs with up to 3 times the cost of the cleanup.
In contrast, lengthy litigation should be expected before NRC may be able to establish its authority to compel such persons to pay for cleanup. Thus, transfer of the site to EPA may accelerate the government's ability to obtain private funds for site remediation.
EPA's authority could be used to identify all PRPs (which could include organizations in addition to those identified by the staff as successors to Ph'ted States Radium Corporation, the original licensee), and to i
reso.ve the existing controversy as to the responsibilities of USR Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries (and any other identified PRPs) for remediation of the Bloomsburg site. Similarly, EPA's authority to identify and assign liability to PRPs could provide incentives for speeding settlement of the Licensees' pending litigation with their insurance companies.
The Bloomsburg site is contaminated not only with NRC-regulated materials, but also with radioactive materials not regulated by NRC.
Unlike NRC, EPA has authority to regulate sites contaminated tith naturally-occupf'ing and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM) (e.g.,
Ra known to be present at the Bloomsburg site) as well as hazardous chemicals.
In addition to NRC-regulated materials and 226Ra, previous site characterization efforts have identified the potential presence of hazardous chemicals on the site.
Coordinating efforts to regulate the remediation of radioactive waste, NARM, hazardous waste, and potential mixed waste would avoid duplicative efforts and enhance the efficiency of site characterization and i
decommissioning efforts.
Further, if EPA supervises remediation of the Bloomsburg site, EPA could ensure that the site is characterized in accordance with EPA-approved protocols and remediated to the proper i
levels, with respect to all four types of materials.
l The Licensees' resources could be used to pay for site characterization and decommissioning, rather than diverting them to pay attorneys' fees and other expenses related to the ongoing litigation of the staff's orders. Thus, more Licensee resources would be available for site cleanuo if litigation costs are minimized.
Even if the Licensees challenge the remediation costs under Superfund, the resources that would otherwise be spent litigating NRC's actions could be conserved for other purposes.
Transfer of the site to EPA would allow the NRC staff to redirect its resources, making them available for other materials licensing and l
I The Commissioners decommissioning projects, rather than expending them in support of the ongoing litigation. The staff estimates that approximately 2 full-time equivalents (FTEs) (i.e., technical and legal personnel) are required per year to support litigation in response to the Licensees
- challenges to the s gff's orders. Directing these resources to other projects is particularly attractive considering the low likelihood that the Bloomsburg site would ever be remediated in response to NRC's orders, even if the staff prevails in all cases.
A transfer of this site to EPA would signal NRC's willingness to work cooperatively with EPA in promoting timely and effective cleanup of contaminated sites.
In addition, it could serve as a precedent for other similar sites, providing an incentive for licensees at those sites to work cooperatively in planning and conducting decommissicning under NRC's regulatory program, to avoid the stigma and costs associated with cleanup under Superfund.
POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES A potential disadvantage of the transfer to EPA is that EPA could assign a low priority to the remedial action at the site.
The priority assigned to a remedial action under Superfund is a complex function of the public and environmental risk posed by the contamination, complexity of the site, availability of remedial technology, public and Congressional interest, State priorities, availability of funding, and litigation. The staff cannot predict whether EPA will, in fact, assign a low priority to this site, but that is a possible outcome.
l Consequently, even if the site were transferred to EPA and the site received the minimum ranking necessary to include it on the NPL, remedial action at the site might not begin for several years.
A further potential disadvantage of a site transfer is that the public
.f and the regulated community might perceive it as an NRC acknowledgement
(
of a weakness in the existing regulatory framework for decommissioning l
nuclear facilities. Transfer of the site now could be viewed as an example of NRC's difficulty in ensuring timely remediation of sites.
Requested Analyses:
In accordance with the Commission's request, the staff provides the following analyses of (1) the cleanup standard that would apply under Superfund and the difference (s) between that standard and the AEA standard; (2) the rights and authorities the State would have if Superfund were extended to the site; and (3) the rights and authorities that private citizens would have to sue the Federal Government or the Licensee (s), using the citizen suit provisions of Superfund.
(1) CLEANUP STANDARD Regarding the cleanup standard that would apply under Superfund, EPA has not yet determined what cleanup standards would govern the remediation of the
The Commissioners,
)
i Bloomsburg site.
EPA would make this determination in the Feasibility Study (FS) that leads to the Record of Decision (rod) that establishes cleanup standards and remedial actions for each site.
EPA would prepare the FS after the site has been scored and entered on the NPL, as described in Enclosure 1.
EPA's requirements for FSs in 40 CFR 300.430(e)(2)(i) require that the lead agency establish remedial action alternatives, including remediation objectives and goals. The remediation goals establish acceptable exposure levels to protect human health and the environment and are developed considering:
applicable or relevant ar.d appropriate requirements (ARARs) under Federal or State environmental laws, drinking water standards and goals, water quality criteria, and other factors.
For known or suspected carcinogens
' including ionizing radiation), acceptable exposure levels are generally concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer 4
probability for an individual of between 10 to 10.
The 10 probability is used as the point of departure for determining remediation goals when ARARs are not available or are not sufficiently protective because of the presence of multiple contaminants or multiple pathways.
Based on information provided by EPA staff, the NRC staff has reviewed 19 Rods for sites that included some radiological contamination. Most of these cases zz6 involved contamination by Ra and its decay products and other naturally-occurring radionuclides.
In most of the Rods, EPA selected ARARs based on EPA's standards for remedial action at uranium mill tailings sites in 40 CFR Part 192.
In many cases, EPA also identified NRC guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.86 as an ARAR for surface contamination on buildings and equipment.
Other sources of ARARs for radiological contamination included NRC's policy statement on below regulatory concern; NRC's air concentration limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B; State guidance on acceptable surface contamination; Department of Energy orders for acceptable public and worker doses; Federal and State water quality standards; and Federal and State air emission limits.
EPA has approved only26one site-specific remediation goal, for a radionuclide in soil, other than Ra, that would be analogous to the concentration limits for radionuclides in soil established by the NRC staff in its February 1992 decommissioning order.
In the rod for the BOMARC Missile Accident Site in New Jersey, EFA accepted a remediation goal, developed by the Air Force, nf 8 pCi/g for plutonium-239 (2nPu), based on a lifetime probability of 10",
usingtheRESgADcompgtercode. This level is aboet 3 times lower than the 8
25 pCi/g for Pu or
'Pu, established in the staffN February 1992, Bloomsburg order. However, given the levels of uncertainties in the modeling and measurements required to develop and implement this remediation goal, it could be argued that the value selected by EPA is roughly comparable to values that the NRC staff has applied at the Bloomsburg site.
The other criteria imposed in the staff's February 1992 Bloomsburg order are generally consistent with the general remediation goals approved by EPA in Rods that involve radiological contamination.
These criteria include the following.
3
The Commissioners (
Acceptable surface contamination levels, as set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.86, which has been cited as a source for ARARs at Superfund sites; 3
Limits for H and other radionuclides in ground water that are based on EPA's Maximum Contaminant Levels for public drinking water in 40 CFR Part 141, which have also been cited as ARARs; 226 228 Concentrations for Ra and Ra based on EPA's uranium and thorium mill tailings standards in 40 CFR Part 192, which have also been cited as ARARs.
In addition, the February 1992 order's specific limits for cobalt-60, strontium-90, cesium-137, and americium-241 are approximately consistent with r
the level of cancer probability approved by EPA for remediation of the B0 MARC site, if comparable scenarios and assumptions are used in the calculations.
==
Conclusion:==
Although EPA has not yet established remediation goals for the Bloomsburg site, the staff anticipates that remediation goals established for i
the site under Superfund would not differ appreciably from the concentration limits imposed by the NRC staff in the February 1992, Bloomsburg order, under the AEA.
(2) STATE AUTHORITY UNDER SUPERFUND For facilities covered by CERCLA, 42 USC 9605, et seq., the States are I
encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements to enable them to undertake l
certain actions, under the National Contingency Plan (NCP), as the lead
- agencies, in any event, State and local response organizations are expected to initiate measures necessary to protect the public health and safety, consistent with the containment and cleanup requirements in the NCP.
The remedial investigation and site feasibility study required under 40 CFR 300.430(d) and (e) are to be performed by a " lead agency," in coordination with any support agencies. Under 40 CFR 300.5, the State may be designated as the lead agency to plan and implement a response, if it is operating pursuant to a contract or cooperative agreement, under Sectivo 104(d)(1) of CERCLA, or designated as the lead agency in a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SM0A) or other agreement.
In addition, even if the State does not serva as lead agency, the lead agency is required to consult with local offit ials and community representatives before commencing field work for the remedial y
investigation, under 40 CFR 300.430(c); support agencies are afforded an opportunity to identify their own ARARs, under 40 CFR 300.430(d)(3); and support agencies are to be notified by the lead agency of the alternatives that will be evaluated in detail, to facilitate the identification of APARs and any appropriate guidance to be considered, under 40 CFR 300.430(e)(8).
In addition to the above, 40 CFR 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(H) requires that the State's concerns be assessed, including its views on the preferred and other alternatives for remedial action and the ARARs or proposed use of waivers.
f f
The Commissioners i Further, 40 CFR 300.430(f)(1)(1)(C) provides that the lead agency must consult with the State, and that State and community acceptance are modifying criteria that are to be considered in remedy selection; and 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(i) provides that the State's views are to be considered by the lead agency in its final remedy selection from among the various alternatives.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 300.500, EPA is to enstre meaningful and substantial State involvement in hazardous substance response; to provice an opportunity for the States to participate in removal, pre-remedial, remedial, and enforcement response activities; and to encourage the States to enter into a State / EPA SM0A, thus increasing the State's involvement in remedial activities.
Section 300.505 provides a framework for cooperation between EPA and the States under an SMOA or other agreement, including a consultative process in which the respective responsibilities of each party are assigned by mutual agreement.
See also 40 CFR 300.515(d) and (e) (describing the importance of a State's involvement in the remedial investigation-feasibility study process, and in the selection of a remedy).
The States are authorized to receive Superfund financing to undertake remedial actions, subject to their provision of certain assurances, under CERCLA, as t
specified in 40 CFR 300.510 and 40 CFR Part 35, subpart O.
The requirements I
and authorization for States to participate in remedial and enforcement i
responses are specified in 40 CFR 300.515 et seq., including their authority to participate in remedial investigations, feasibility studies, enforcement negotiations, and removal actions.
(3) THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS UNDER SUPERFUND t
As discussed above, EPA is to solicit community participation in the identification of ARARs and other aspects of the remedial investigation-f feasibility study process.
In addition, private citizens are authorized under CERCLA to undertake a response action to eliminate a release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant, subject to their compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR 300.700. Various mechanisms are provided in CERCLA for a private citizen to recover the cost of such a response action. These mechanisms are summarized in 40 CFR 300.700, and include:
(a) recovery of the response cost plus interest, from the parties found to be liable; and (b) recovery from Superfund of the private citizen's reasonable response costs, plus interest.
In addition, " citizens suits" are authorized under Section 310 of CERCLA:
private citizens are authorized to commence a civil action, on their own behalf, against (a) any person who is alleged to be in violation of any standard, regulation, condition, requirement, or order under the Act; and (b) any federal official who is alleged to have failed to perform a required duty under the Act.
Judicial relief, in such actions, may consist of an order to t
enforce and/or correct the violation or an order imposing any civil penalty
+
provided for the violation; and the court may award the prevailing party his costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert witness fees.
f r
+
The Commissioners i Planned Actions:
i The staff plans to communicate with the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, to (1) inform EPA that the staff believes that 4
any further negotiations between NRC and the parties responsible for the Bloomsburg site would be futile and (2) urge EPA's continued consideration of the Bloomsburg site for remediation under the Superfund program.
The staff will offer any necessary assistance required by EPA to complete its evaluation and scoring of the site, by providing EPA with all available information concerning the site. Assuming that the site scores above the minimum i
threshold for inclusion on the NPL, the staff will continue to support EPA consideration of the site for remediatior by commenting favorably in response to the Federal Reaister notice proposing the site for inclusion on the NPL.
1 The staff anticipates that this action could be completed by late 1993 or early 1994.
Note that, based on informal communications with EPA regional staff, the NRC staff understands that EPA does not view the Bloomsburg site as warranting immediate remedial action under Superfund.
In the interim, the staff would consider whether it is appropriate to request that the ASLB hold in abeyance the hearings contesting the staff's orders of 1
March 1989, August 1989, and February 1992, pending a decision from EPA as to whether the site qualifies for remediation under Superfund, and inclusion of the site on the NPL. Once EPA includes the site on the NPL, the staff would
+
take such other actions as may be appropriate, which could include rescinding the 1989 and 1992 orders and requesting that the Board dismiss the proceedings involving those orders.
If the ASLB sustains the staff's denial of the applications to renew License Nos. 37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08, the Commission will retain jurisdiction over j
the Licensees pending official termination of the licenses in accordance with 10 CFR 30.36.
For example, the Licensees would be required to terminate use of NRC-licensed material and limit their actions to those related to decommissioning, to properly dispose of radioactive waste, and to continue to l
control access to the site.
The most recent inspection report (Enclosure 3) l describes the current status of the site.
If the Licensees were no longer on i
the site, the principal concern, in addition to access control, would be the rol and disposal of the approximate 4200 terabecquerels (114,000 curies) con}H in various stages of production, as completed signs, and as stored of waste.
The staff notes that its planned actions could change, as appropriate, in i
response to intervening events.
In addition, the staff will use the experience gained in this matter in considering whether a formal agreement (e.g., memorandum of understanding) is necessary and appropriate for considering the potential transfer of other sites to EPA under Superfund.
If the staff determines that such an agreement is necessary and appropriate, the staff will forward this recommendation, along with a justification for the Commission's review, before engaging in formal discussions with EPA concerning other such sites.
i f
i
i
?
The Commissioners 1 RECOMMENDATION:
Unless the Commission directs otherwise, in 30 days, the staff plans: (1) to communicate with EPA to inform EPA of the staff's belief that additional negotiations between NRC and the Licensees would be futile and to urge EPA's continued consideration of accepting the Bloomsburg site for remediation, under the Superfund program; and (2) if EPA agrees, to take those actions necessary to effect the transfer to EPA and to support EPA's activities.
For example, the staff may consider actions such as rescinding the 1989 and 1992 orders to avoid potentially inconsistent or duplicative requirements, and filing a request that the ASLB dismiss the proceedings involving those orders.
COORDINATION:
The staff coordinated this paper with the Office of the General Counsel (0GC) and OGC has no legal objection.
-l
\\
g a 'es
. Ta or E ecutive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
The Superfund Site Remediation Process 2.
Description of Active Licenses and Summary of Staff Actions 3.
NRC ltr (w/ encl) dtd 6/10/93 cc w/ enclosures: Service List SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on Thursday, September 16, 1993, that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to action proposed in this paper.
1 DISTRIBUTION:
Commissionerc OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA OPP REGION I i
THE SUPERFUND SITE REMEDIATION PROCESS 1.
INTRODUCTION The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfung) releases: authorizes two types of government response actions to hazardous substance Removal Actions and Remedial Actions (ras).
Removal Actions are short-term actions conducted in response to emergency situations (i.e., to avert an explosion at a spill site).
Removal Actions are limited to 12 months duration or $2 million in expenditures.
ras are generally more expensive and longer-term because they ar" intended to provide permanent solutions to threats from hazardous substances. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can take Removal Actions at any sites, but can only take ras at sites listed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
EPA's process for pas is illustrated in the figure shown on page 2.
Before a site can be placed on the NPL, the site must be assessed and proposed for inclusion on the NPL.
Interested individuals are allowed time to comment on the proposal to include the site on the NPL. After the comment period, EPA or the State performs a Preliminary Assessment (PA) and, if needed, a Site Investigation (SI). A PA is a review of available information and a reconnaissance visit to the site to determine if a release or a potential release of hazardous material requires additional investigation or action.
The goal of the PA is to set priorities for site inspection, to determine if a Removal Action is necessary, and to eliminate, from further consideration, releases that do not pose a threat to the public health nor to the environment. An SI involves collecting environmental samples and gathering information to identify the waste handling practices at the site, describing the known contaminants and the surrounding area, and identifying the potential human and environmental populations exposed to the release.
Information gathered during the SI is used to support the scoring of the site, using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is a system of weighted numerical values that describe the significance of a release or threatened release.
To be eligible for inclusion on the NPL, a site muct score greater than 28.5 on EPA's HRS or be designated by the State in which the site is located as the highest priority site in that State.
In addition, a site may be included on the NPL if:
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has issued a health advisory recommending that indi"iduals should be protected from the release; EPA has made a determination thi.t the relcase poses a significant threat to the environment; and it is more cod-effective to use remedial authority than to use removal authority, to respond to the release.
" Hazardous substance" includes radioactive materials and other materials regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
ENCLOSURE 1
2-Figure POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL RELEASE l
PRELIMINARY ASSESSHENT l
SITE INVESTIGATION I
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM HATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST I
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED REMEDY RECORD OF DECISION REMEDIAL DESIGN REMEDIAL ACTION REMEDIATION COMPLETE DELISTING/ COST RECOVERY Superfund Site Remediation Process
1
- 2. PROCESS Once listed on the NPL, the lead agency (EPA or the State) begins the Remedial Investigation-Feasibility Study (RI-FS) process. The first step in the process is the development, by the lead agency, of a scoping document for the RI-FS. This document identifies the types of ras that may be required, whether interim actions are warranted, and the sequence of site ras.
After this plan is approved by EPA, the RI is usually performed first, although EPA has used a phased approach to allow flexibility and to tailor the process to site-specific needs and conditions. During the RI, basic information on the site and on potential ras is collected. The object of the RI is to provide sufficient information to support the evaluation of l
alternative ras and the selection of an RA for the site. This includes performing a Risk Assessment of the site and the alternative ras.
The FS uses the information grnerated in the RI to evaluate alternative ras.
EPA encourages Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to conduct, or become involved in, the RI-FS process.
Completed RI-FS reports are the basis for EPA's cleanup decisions. The RI-FS does not result in a decision, per se.
Rather, the FS evaluates and screens feasible alternative remedies on the basis of cost, engineering practicality, and effectiveness.
EPA next proposes, for public comment, a preferred RA, along with the RI-FS report.
After the completion of the RI-FS and the associated comment period, EPA prepares the Record of Decision (rod), which documents the final remedy selection for the site. Based on public comments and any new information received, EPA selects the final RA, which, by statute (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986), must: protect human health and the environment; attain any applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); be cost-effective; and, to the maximum extent practicable, use permanent solutions, treatment technologies, and resource recovery. The rod summarizes the decisions and responds to comments received during the comment period. After the signing of the rod, EPA must notify the PRPs and give them the opportunity to consider undertaking the ras at the site.
After the rod, the Remedial Design (RD)-RA ensues as the combined process for I
site cleanup implementation.
EPA may perform the RD-RA, using funds from the Superfund, but CERCLA requires that the State contribute to the RA costs.
If EPA assumes responsibility for the RD-RA, it may recover costs, including the State expenditures, from the PRPs. PRPs may choose to perform the RD-RA.
If PRPs choose to implement the RD-RA, they must negotiate a consent decree, with EPA, that governs the ras.
Before developing the RD, an RA Work Plan is prepared. This workplan is used as a blueprint for developing the required i
plans and conducting the ras. During the RD phase, technical information required to support bids on site remediation work, such as soil l
characteristics, site hydrology, and the extent of contamination is assembled.
~
During the RA phase, the site is cleaned up in accordance with the requirements of the RA Work Plan, j
It is important to note that ras might never be " completed."
If contaminants i
remain at the site, EPA requires that the post-remedial action activities
. include continued ground water monitoring and may involve instituting the post-closure care requirements of RCRA, if RCRA hazardous wastes are involved at the site.
RCRA post-closure care can extend for 30 years or more.
For all sites where contamination remains, EPA performs a site evaluation every 5 years, to ensure that the ras remain protective of the public health and the environment.
3.
CERCLA RESPONSE COSTS AND ATTENDANT LIABILITY For budget planning purposes, EPA uses " pricing factors" to estimate the costs of CERCLA responses. These pricing factors currently are:
- $ 7000 per PA
- $ 25,000 per SI l
- $ 750,000 per RI-FS
- $ 700,000 per RD
- $ 13,700,000 per RA In addition, EPA estimates the costs associated with these activities on an average-per-site and total cost basis.
EPA's current average total costs per 2
site (in 1988 dollars) are :
- $ 1,300,000 per RI-FS
- $ 1,500,000 per RD
- $25,000,000 per RA The current cost for Superfund site cleanups averages between $20 and 30 million.
It is important to note that a "Superfund site" may involve more than one operable unit, each of which could be the subject of a separate RA.
3 CERCLA states that the liability of the responsible person shall be the full and total cost of the response and damages if:
l
- The release or threatened release is the result of willful misconduct or negligence by the person; j
The re'; ult of a violation of applicable safety, construction, or operating standards or regulations (in both cases, CERCLA requires that the person have knavledge of the misconduct or violation); or 2
58 [R 34022, June 23, 1993 3
" Person" includes an individual, firm, corporation, association, partnership, commercial entity, U. S. Government, State, municipality, commission, political subdivision of a State, or an interstate body.
= The responsible party fails to provide assistance requested by a public official in connection with response activities.
If a liable person fails, without sufficient cause, to perform a removal or RA, that person may be liable to the United States for punitive damages in an amount at least equal to, but not to exceed, 3 times any costs incurred by Superfund as a result of that person's failure to take proper action.
4.
SUPERFUND EXPEDITING PROCESS In February 1992, EPA Administrator Reilly approved the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
SACM is a method to streamline the Superfund process and provide risk-based cleanups at the greatest possible number of sites.
The goal of SACM is to ellow EPA to promptly clean up sites, to ensure protection of the human population, and then to address environmental restoration. SACM is intended to streamline Site and Risk Assessment into a one-step process, instead of conducting numerous studies, as is currently done during the site assessment (RI-FS) phase. SACM will use Early Actions to address sites that can be cleaned up in 3 to 5 years and will involve removing hazardous substances from the site, restricting offsite contaminant movement, and restricting access to the site. Most near-term threats to humans will be addressed by Early Actions.
Long-Term Actions are multi-year efforts to remediate contaminated ground water and to clean up large areas such as mining sites, wetlands, and estuaries, and projects involving the incineration of contaminants or the restoration of ground water used for drinking water purposes.
EPA has instituted pilot SACM projects in all EPA regions.
It is anticipated that SACM will be fully implemented during the next CERCLA re-authorization in late 1993 or early 1994.
i
[
t
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVE LICENSES AND
SUMMARY
OF STAFF ACTIONS A.
DESCRIPTION OF LICENSES 1.
LICENSE NO. 37-00030-02: This license authorizes the possession and use of unspecified amounts of "any" byproduct material in the form of
"[c]ontaminated facilities and equipment" for purposes of
"[d]econtamination, cleanup, and disposal of equipment and facilities previously used for research and development under this license."
2.
LICENSE NO. ??-00030-08: This license authorizes the possession and use of tritium (3 ) in "any" chemical or physical form, for research and a
development, manufacturing of specified classes of products, and distribution to specific licensees. The -08 :icense also authorizes possession and use of certain sealed sources is reference standards.
i 3.
LICENSE NO. 37-00030-09G:
Issyedpursuantto10CFR32.51,thislicense authorizes the distribution of H-containing luminous devices (e.g., exit signs) to persons generally licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 31.5.
This license does NOT authorize possession of any radioactive material.
4.
LICENSE NO. 37-00030-10G:
Issyedpursuantto10CFR32.53,thislicense authorizes the distribution of H-containing it.minous safety devices for use in aircraft to persons generally licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 31.7.
Like the -09G License, this license does NOT authorize the possession of any radioactive material.
5 B.
SUMMARY
OF STAFF ACTIONS 1.
"0R,0ER MODIFYING LICENSES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) AND DEMAND FOR INFORMATION," DATED MARCH 16, 1989 [54 FR 12035, March 23, 1989]
REASON FOR ORDER:
"In order to ensure that the Corporations [SLC and the other Corporations that the Staff believes are the successors to the originally named licensee, United States Radium Corporation] provide adequate resources to evaluate, plan, and implement decontam%ation efforts with proper radiological safety procedures, I have determined that i
specific decontamination requirements and milestones are necessary and i
that decontamination needs to begin expeditiously so as to minimize any t
threat to the public health and safety."
I
SUMMARY
OF REQUIREMENTS OF ORDER: The March 1989 Order requires the Corporations:
(1) to fence and post the site; (2) to submit a joint plan j
to characterize the radioactivity on the site, including a radiological and geohydrological survey, "... sufficient to develop a complete plan for decontamination / removal operations necessary to permit unrestricted I
access to the site"; (3) to implement the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-ENCLOSURE 2
)
. +
approved characterization plan and submit a report to NRC; (4) after NRC approval of the characterization report, to submit a "... single decontamination plan with a timetable for specific decontamination activities (milestones) and transfer of contaminated waste.... and specify the amount of funds each of the Corporations is to provide for implementation of the plan"; (5) after NRC approval of the decontamination plan, to undertake decontamination and submit periodic status reports.
The Order also prohibits the abandonment or transfer of the Bloomsburg facility until NRC confirms successful decontamination.
[This summary does not include the schedules for meeting the Order's requirements.]
DEMAND FOR INFORMATION (DFI): The DFI accompanying the March 1989 Order sought information on the following subjects:
(1) the corporate reorganizations and transfer discussed in the Order; (2) financial statements and tax returns for each Carporation; and (3) listing of persons holding more than 10 percent of the stock of each corporation.
2.
"0RDER MODIFYING LICENSES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)," DATED AUGUST 21, 1989 j
[54 FR 36078, August 31,1989)
REASON FOR THE ORDER:
"The Corporations' failure to provide assurance of adequate funding to complete implementation of a satisfactory site characterization plan, the uncertainty regarding the nature and extent of F
contamination at the Bloomsburg facility, and the statements made by the Corporations' principal officers as to the limited financial resources available for site characterization, let alone decontamination, demonstrate that additional actions are immediately needed to protect public health and safety by assuring that sufficient resources are made t
available by the Corporations to initiate the site characterization and take necessary immediate remedial action for any significant health and safety problems."
SUMMARY
OF REQUIREMENTS OF ORDER: The August 1989 Order requires the Corporations: (1) to establish a trust pursuant to a trust agreement that complies with criteria established in the Order; (2) to submit an originally signed duplicate of the trust agreement to NRC; and (3) to fund the trust with a total of $1,000,000 (the estimated cost of site characterization), according to a schedule specified in the Order. The Order also provides that NRC could require the Corporations to provide up to an additional 5300,000, if the original $1,000,000 was not sufficient to characterize the site or take any immediately needed remedial actions.
3.
" DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS TO RENEW LICENSES," DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1992 REASON FOR THE DENIAL: Although the -02 and -08 Licenses are subject to the financial assurance for decommissioning requirements in 10 CFR 30.35, the Staff determined that the Corporations have provided neither the decommissioning funding plan nor the certification of financial assurance required by 10 CFR 30.35, by July 27, 1990, and they have "... provided no information to assure the Staff that they will comply with these regulatory requirements in the foreseeable future."
l e
~.
. 4.
"0RDER ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND SCHEDULE FOR DECOMMISSIONING THE BLOOMSBURG SITE," DATED FEBRUARY 7,1992 [57 FR 6136, February 20,1992]
REASON FOR THE ORDER: The Order was issued as a result of the denial of the -02 and -08 Licenses, the only licenses authorizing possession and use of NRC-licensed material at the Bloomsburg site, and to require actions to clean up the site following license expiration.
SUMMARY
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDER: Upon the effectiveness of the denials of the -02 and -08 Licenses, the Order states that the Corporations or Licensees are "... subject to the requirements in 10 CFR 30.36 and shall satisfy those requirements in accordance with the criteria... and schedule set forth in..." specified attachments to the Order.
The criteria set forth in the Order are those appropriate to the i
Bloomsburg site as set forth in the Site Decontamination Management Plan (SDMP) Action Plan (SECY-91-342 and 91-342A). Also in accordance with the SDMP Action Plan, the decommissioning schedule in the Order calls for completion of decommissioning in 3 years, and it provides intermediate milestones for decommissioning.
5.
"0RDER TO SAFETY LIGHT CORPORATION PROHIBITING THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND REQUIRING THE PRESERVATION OF THE STATUS 000 (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) AND DEMAND FOR INFORMATION," DATED JANUARY 29, 1993 [58 FR 7268, February 5, 1993]
+
REASON FOR THE ORDER:
... [F]urther action, as indicated by the Licensing Board, is now required in order to prevent SLC from proceeding to take any further steps to implement its ar.nounced transfer of assets, or any other major transfer of assets that may reduce its ability to comply with the March and August 1989 Orders and the February 1992 i
Order...."
i
SUMMARY
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDER: The January 1993 Order: (1) prohibits SLC from taking any steps to implement its Asset Purchase Agreement of January 4,1993, without prior NRC Staff approval; (2) prohibits SLC from transferring or selling any other major assets, other than in the normal course of business, for full fair value, without prior Staff approval; (3) prohibits SLC from entering into or completing any transaction that would materially affect the value of the company or its j
ability to comply with the Staff's outstanding Orders; (4) requires SLC to set aside and preserve in a separate acenunt, any and all funds it may have received or will receive as a result of the January 4,1993, sale of SLC's assets, as previously ordered by the Licensing Board in its i
January 22, 1993, Order; (5) requires SLC to obtain and provide to the Staff a second valuation of the assets covered by the Asset Purchase Agreement, to be performed by an independent appraiser approved in advance by the Staff.
1 5
l
. DFI: The DFI accompanying the January 1993 Order requires SLC to submit
)
to the Staff (1) a full description of all steps that have been taken, to date, to implement or consummate the January 4 Asset Purchase Agreement, as well as all such steps that are pending or are contemplated to occur in the future and (2) specified information about the separate account required by the Staff's January 1993 Order and previously required by the i
Licensing Board's Jar.uary 22 Order.
5 k
f i
a i
4
)
f
- js.* E8 c v
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
REGloN I o,
g 475 ALLENDALE ROAD g
/
KING OF PRUSStA. PENNSYLVANIA 194 5 1415 JUN 101993 Docket Nos. 030-05980 License Nos. 37-00030-02 030-05982 37-00030-08 Safety Light Corporation ATfN: Larry Harmon Plant Manager 4150-A Old Berwick Road Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania 17815
Dear Mr. Harmon:
i
Subject:
Combined Inspection Report No.93-001 On April 20 and 21,1993, Betsy Ullrich and Francis M. Costello of this office conducted a routine safety inspection at the above address of activities autho ized by the above listed NRC licenses. The inspection consisted of observations by the insp s, interviews with personnel, and a selective examination of representative record.
he findings of the inspection were discussed with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. A copy of the NRC inspection report is enclosed.
Within the scope of the inspection, no violations were identified.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the Public Document Room. No reply to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, t
I Joan D. Kinaeman, Chief r
search, Development, and Decommissioning Section Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards 3
v
Safety Light Corporation l
Enclosure:
1 Combined Inspection Report Nos. 030-05980/93-001 and 030-05982/93-001 cc:
Public Document Room (PDR)
Nuclear Safety Infonnation Center (NSIC)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Norman Fritz, Radiation Safety Officer USR Industries, Incorporated ATfN: Ralph T. McElvenny Chairman and Chief Executive 550 Post Oak Boulevard i-Suite 550 Houston, Texas 77027
~
1 bec:
1 Region I Docket Room (w/concunences)
F. Costello, RI P. Vacca, NMSS i
l f
1 l
i f
t' I
s i
i i
J l
i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' l
REGION I i
INSPECTION REPORT 4
Report Nos. 030-05980/93-001 030-05982/93-001
)
Docket Nos. 030-05980 030-05982 License Nos. 37-00030-02 Priority 3 Category E 37-00030-08 i
B i
Licensee:
Safety Licht Corocration 4150-A Old Berwick Road Bloemsbure. Pennsylvania Facility Name: Safety Licht Corooration Inspection At:
Bloomsburc. Pennsylvania
{
Inspection Conducted: April 20-21.1993 i
8 h8 3
Inspectors:
~
Betsy Ullr Senior Health Physicist
'date A_+d h-(sl1,141 Franci's M. Costello, Chief
'8 da'te l
Medical Licensing Section, DRSS l
Approved by:
MAM2'^
6 */d "N
=
hh D. Kinnefnan, Chief date j
Rese4rch. Pvelopment and Decomnussiomng 9
on,,
E3 l
t i
Inspection Summary:
Inspection conducted April 20-21.1993 (tembined Reoort Nos.
Q3Q-05980/93-001 and 030-05982/93-001 l
l l
i F
5 t
~
if
?
Areas Insnected:
Routine, unannounced inspection, including review of: organization and status of licensed activities, facilities and equipment; package receipt, shipment, and inventory; environmental releases of tritium; environmental monitoring from contaminated facilities; routine surveys; and confirmatory measurements.
j Results:
No violations were identified with respect to License No. 37 000304)8. With respect to License No. 37-00030-0;, the apparent violation identified in Inspection No.
(
030-05980/86-001 apparently hai not been corrected.
t t
i 1
t 2
l 9
d l
l l
l l
l
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Larry Harmon, Plant Manager
- Norman Fritz, Radiation Safety Officer
- John MacHutchin, Consultant Charles Berlin, Radiation Safety Technician l-
- present at exit interview 2.
Oreanization and Status of Licensed Activities Safety Light Corporation is authorized by NRC License No. 37-00030-08 to possess and use up to 350,000 curies of hydrogen-3 (tritium) for research and development, manufacturing, and distribution of luminous signs and other products, and any -
byproduct material as sealed sources for use as reference standards. License No.
37-00030-02 authorizes possession of any byproduct material as contaminated facilities and equipment resulting from activities previously conducted ander this license. The licensee is also authorized by License Nos. 37-00030-09G and 37-00030-10G to distribute luminous signs and other products to persons who possess them pursuant to a general license; however, the activities authorized by these licenses were not reviewed during this inspection.
The licensee's current operations include the assembly of luminous signs and markers, and the manufacture and distribution of tritium gas chromatograph foils and accelerator targets. Assembly of signs occurs daily Most tritium-filled tubes used in the assembly of signs are received from Shield Source, Incorporated of Petersborough, Ontario, Canada. One rotary tube-filling machine remains on site for the production of tritium-filled tubes used in the luminous signs, but such production occurs only about once each month.
Ed Kettyle, the General Manager for Safety Light Corporation, maintains his office in Ontario, Canada where he is also the president of Shield Source, Incorporated. The day-to-day activities at Safety Light Corporation are handled by Larry Harmon, the Plant Manager and Norman Fritz, the Radiation Safety Officer. Two radiation safety technicians performs surveys, sampling, and analysis. Approximately 15 to 20 employees are involved in the production ofluminous signs and tritium foils. John MacHutchin, former Radiatiori Safety Officer now retired, acts as technical consultant for the licensee and serves on the Radiation Safety Committee.
No decontaniination activities are being performed under License No. 37-00030-02.
The failure to perform decontamination activities as required by the license was cited as an apparent violation in the NRC Inspection Report No. 030-05980/86-001. This apparent violation has not been corrected. Ground water continues to be monitored
.I 4
3 using onsite and perimeter wells to evaluat the status of radioactive material that was buried on the property during the 1950's and 1960's.
The Radiation Safety Committee meets routinely during the year. Minutes were reviewed of meetings held on May 29,1992; August 27,1992; September 24,1992; February 19-20, 1993, and February 25,1993. Appropriate issues were reviewed at i
the meetings. During the past year, the Radiation Safety Committee discussed and approved reduction in the frequency of some contamination surveys and bioassays, based on past results of such surveys and the decrease in the bandling of unsealed tritium gas. The results of these changes were discussed at later meetings to determine if any safety concerns were identified as a result of decreasing such 3
surveys.
i No safety concerns were identined.
)
3.
Facilities and Eauipment I
f Most licensed activities occur in the tritium production facility, which includes: the j
gas-fill room where tubes are filled with tritium and gas chromatograph foils are l
prepared; the Exit Sign assembly room and dark room; and the Health Physics laboratory. Licensed material is also stored in the Liquid Waste building and the Solid Waste building behind the tritium production facility. Various other buildings on the site remain contaminated from past activities involving cesium-137, strontium-90, radium, and other radioisotopes.
0 i
The Health Physics laboratory uses a Packard TriCarb Mode! 4530 liquid scintillation l
counter which for counting water samples and bioassay samples. This instrument is
]
checked daily with a tritium standard and a quench curve is performed monthly. An l
Eberline MS-2 gas-flow proportional counter is also used to count wipe samples from room surveys, package surveys and other contamination surveys. This instrument is l
i checked for operation daily with a carbon-14 standard and a curve is run every 6
)
months using a radium D and E standard to determine the alpha and beta counting 1
plateaus. Records reviewed foi the period of January 1992 through April 1993 indicate that the instruments were checked and were operating as required. The
{
Eberline MS-2 gas-flow proportional counter located in the ancillary counting laboratory was also checked and was operational as required.
The Health Physics laboratory also maintains a variety of air sampimg equipment and portable tritium monitors used in various areas of the facility. All instruments observed appeared to be operating correctly. Records of calibration for these I
instruments were not reviewed during this inspection.
?
No safety concerns were identi6ed.
a i
m
4 5
4.
Packace Receint. Shioment. and Inventory Records of incoming packages and outgoing shipments of licensed material were reviewed for the period of January through April 1993. All incoming packages were surveyed using the Triton III portable tritium monitor and were wipe tested. No contamination or leakage was detected. Most incoming material was in the form of filled tubes from Shield Source, Incorporated or luminous signs returned by general licensees. Since the last inspection, only one shipment containing 5,126 curies of tritium gas was received from the Mound Laboratory in September 1992.
Approximately 350 outgoing shipments of licensed material were made between January and April 1993. Most shipments were boxes of luminous signs. All were wipe tested and no contamination was identified.
The total inventory of tritium as of April 19,1993 was 113,981 curies. This included 61,547 curies in completed signs and foils; 14,723 curies in liquid waste; 10,643 curies in the Solid Waste building; and the remainder in various stages of production.
No safety concerns were identified.
5.
Environmental Releases of Tritium All building exhausts from the tritium process building are combined for discharge through a single stack which is monitored continuously for particulate (insoluble),
aqueous (soluble), and gaseous forms of tritium. Samples are analyzed weekly.
Records reviewed during the period of December 30,1992 through April 14,1993 list weekly releases ranging from 0.0003 to 0.0019 curies ofinsoluble tritium; 0.40 to 1.77 curies of soluble tritium; and 0.69 to 21.48 curies of gaseous tritium. Air samplers are located along the perimeter of the restricted area to monitor the concentrations of soluble tritium released to unrestricted areas. During the period of January 1992 through April 1993, the airborne concentrations ranged from 0.0002 E-7 microcuries per milliliter (uCi/ml) of air to 0.0354 E-7 uCi/ml. This is a small 3
fraction of the maximum permissible concentration of 2 E-7 uCi/ml listed in Table II, Column 1 of 10 CFR 20 Appendix B. The amounts of tritium released to the environment have decreased since the last inspection, most likely due to the decrease in use of tritium gas for filling of tubw,.
In accordance with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania NPDES permit, the licensee makes discharges of tritium in liquid wastewater to the Susquehanna River.
Wastewater is collected in one of three holding tanks until full, when it is sampled i
prior to release. Each holding tank has a volume of 1.71 E4 liters. Due to the decrease in tube-filling activities, only one discharge has been made to date in 1993.
The tritium concentration in the wastewater released was 0.44 E-3 uCi/ml, which is i
a l
1
6 less than the maximum permissible concentration limit of 3 E-3 uCi/ml listed in Table II, column 2 of 10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Eight discharges were made in 1992, ranging from 0.22 E-3 to 0.63 E-3 uCi/ml.
Tritium in the environment is also monitored by analysis of samples from various wells. Seven wells are monitored monthly, and the remaining 22 wells are sampled I to 4 times each year. Sample results ranged from background up to 77,800 picocuries per liter (7.78 E-5 uCi/ml) during 1992, and most samples were less than 10,000 picocuries per liter. There are no clear trends indicated by the results of the samples.
No safety concems were identified.
6.
Environmental Monitorine from Contaminated Facilities Water samples are collected periodically from wcils on and off site. Samples are analyzed for gross beta content. Results of the most recent samples from each well are as follows:
4 Bore #
Date Collected Gross Beta (nicoeuries per liter) 1 March 1993 8600 +/- 200 2
March 1993 3300 +/- 100 3
March 1993 1200 +/- 100 4
January 1993 130 +/- 80 5
February 1993 260 +/- 10 (and 81+/-17 alpha) 6 March 1993 1400 +/- 100 7
February 1993 54 +/- 5 8
January 1993 220 +/- 90 1
9 October 1992
< 100 10 February 1993 84 + /- 5 i
11 not ab!e to be sampled 12 September 1992 15 +/- 3
)
13 September 1992 94 +/- 5 14 March 1993 4.2 +/- 1.8
)
15 July 1992 4.2 +/- 1.6 i
16 April 1992 3.4 +/- 1.6 17 not able to be sampled 18 August 1992 35 +/- 3 19 March 1993 750 +/- 20 20 not able to be sampled 21 May 1992 1700 +/- 100
7 Bore #
Date Collected Gross Beta (picoeuries oer liter) 22 August 1992 3700 +/- 100 23 May 1992 44 +/- 4 East Lagoon August 1992 56 +/- 7 Murphy Well March 1993
<3 V-W Well Marct.1993
<2 No safety concerns were identified.
7.
Bioassays During the past year, the frequency of performing bioassays was reduced from once each week to once every two weeks. The frequency was reduced after discussion by the Radiation Safety Committee, based on past results and the decrease in activities requiring handling of unsealed tritium. During 1992, the maximum dose to an individual due to uptake of tritium was 0.018 rem. During the first auarter of 1993, the maximum dose was 0.002 rem. Most workers received no measurable dose.
No safety concerns were identified.
8.
Routine Surveys During the past year, the frequency of performing surveys of the gas-fill room, and associated unrestricted areas of the tritium processing facility, was reduced from daily to each day that the gas-fill room is entered. Records were reviewed for the pe iod of t
January 1992 through April 1993. Typical contamination levels in the gas-fill room are on the order of 1 E3 to 1 E5 disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters (dpm/100 cm2). Typical contamination levels identified in the associated parestricted areas (hallway, bathrooms, etc.) did not exceed background except for occasional swipes measuring 1000 to 2000 dpm/100 cm2. Areas identified as contaminated were cleaned and re-surveyed as required.
i Most other areas are surveyed weekly for removable contamination. Records were reviewed for the period of January 1993 through April 1993. Typical contamination levels did not exceed background in the Administration building, the Liquid Waste building, and in Coating room #1, Coating room #2, Exit Sign assembly room, Foils Prep room, and the Inactive tube room of the Tritium Process building. The Solid Waste building is surveyed once every two weeks, and typical contamination levels ranged from 1000 to 2000 dpm/100 cm2.
l l
1
~
\\
8 On February 3,1993 a tridum-filled glass tube was broken in the Exit Sign Assembly room. Special surveys were performed which identified contamination levels up to 500,000 dpm/100 cm2. The area was cleaned and re-surveyed. Surveys of personnel working in the area were performed and bicassays were done. No personnel contamination or tritium uptake was identified.
No safety concerns were identified.
9.
Waste Disposal No waste has been disposed since the last inspecdon except for liquid wastewater released to the river (see Section 5). Foils and unusable glass tubes containing tritium stored in the Solid Waste building have been sealed in stainless steel containers which are welded shut to prevent leakage of tritium. The licensee has notified customers that they will no longer accept return of foils for disposal.
Of the 44 drums of tritium-contaminated material resulting from the drilling of wells by Chem-Nuclear, only 16 remain on site. Water was drained from the drums to the Liquid Waste holding tanks and disposed of to the river in 1992. The remaining drums contain soil or sludge. These drums are stored on pallets outside behind the tritium production facility. They are protected from rain and snow by a plastic cover which is secured over all the drums.
No safety concerns were identified.
10.
Confirmatorv Measurements During Inspection No. 030-05980/92-001, two water samples were brought back to the Region I Laboratory for analysis. The water sample from Bore 14 was collected by the licensee in March as part of their routine sampling program. The second water sample was from liquid waste Tank C. The NRC had the samples analyzed by the U.
i S. Department of Energy Radiological and Envircnmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) in Idaho. Gross alpha measurements were made using a zinc sulfide scintillation counting system; gross beta measurements were performed using a gas-flow proportional counter; and tritium was measured using liquid scintillation counting. Following are the results:
i
9 i
t RESL Bore 14 gross alpha 0
l gross beta 3 E-9 uCi/ml i
tridum 2.31 E-5 uCi/ml Tank C gross alpha 8 E-9 gross beta 3.8 E-8 uCi/ml l
tridum 1.26 E-3 uCi/ml i
No safety concerns were idendfied.
i 11.
Exit Interview l
The NRC inspectors met with the individuals idendfied in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection. The scope and findings of the inspection were j
summarized.
l i
l 9
E s
i 1
i i
l 1
I
'f i
i i
t i
l 4
v t
4 SERVICE LIST Thomas S. Moore, Esq.
Adainistrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Frederick J. Shon, Esq.
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 James H. Carpenter Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Office of Comission Appellate Adjudication U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Adjudicatory File (2)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Huclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Section Karla Smith, Esq.
Regional Counsel USNRC, Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. C. Richter White Safety Light Corporation 4150-A Old Berwick Road Bloomsburg, PA 17815 3
m e'
i Mr. Ralph T. McElvenny l
USR Industries, Inc.
550 Post Oak Blvd.
Suite 550 Houston, TX 77027 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
j Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Sherwin Turk, 0GC Susan Uttal, 0GC Lori Duncan, OGC i
}
h r
t
?
i i
r h
i
?
r f
f i
l l
. -