ML20059K314
| ML20059K314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/08/1993 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9311150325 | |
| Download: ML20059K314 (76) | |
Text
MWN884%%%'6W6fr%W6%%%%f.WWW6WrVgV6%A4%%fffWgypypyggggggg 3
h
~;4: EMIT'A1. TO:
/
Occument Centrol Dest. 015 Phillips 3
C d!
CVANCEO CCPY TO:
The Public Occument Docm G
////o[93 E
3
' ATE:
c SECY Correspondence & Records Branen h
FRCM:
a n
5 Attacned are ccoies of a Comission meeting transcript and relatec meeting Q
3 cecument(s).
They are being forwarced for entry en the Daily Accession List and g
g placement in the Public Document Room. No other cistribution is recuested or g
c recuirec.
o
~
"eeting
Title:
dxA/s b h* -h d
g l
%%~aik I'.[ C/.3, 0::en X
Closed 5
"eet1n; Cate:
//
5 6
i 0
3 3
! tem Cescriptien -
Copies g
Advanced DCS C
s g
h to POR Cg
.E
.5 e
Ec
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 e:
(> i Ani tso--<>s sz/ ]
i i~
i y
C.
g h
2.
E m
C D
C illl 3.
E-m 2
P
^
w D
r
=
C k
C l
h pk 5.
~.
M 9311150325 931108
~
E 5.
t PDR 10CFR
[
PT9. 7 PDR
,Tg s
- E::1 E
- DCR is advanced one copy of each cocument, two of eacn SECY paper.
D
[
h C1R Branch files t}g na,1 transcript, with attacnments, withcut SECY
- q
- acers.
J g,, g Y
G,t j
h gnas=======
mwwwmmmmmmmmmmwn
p s1
?
UNITED STATES:OF. AMERICA
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY:COMMIS SION-9:,
..v
Title:
aR1srzna on s1rz DzComarssion1na xAnAozatur rtAn-LOCatiOD RoCKVILLs, MARYLAND b3k6 NoVsMBzR 8,'1993 PagSS:
so PAozs f
NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
'20005 (202) 234-4433 r
4 9
e
DISCLAIMER i
(
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting.of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on November 8, 1993 in the Commission's office at One F
White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
f The transcript - is intended solely for general L
informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is s
not part of the formal or informal record of decision of i
the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this i
transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination l
I or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with I
the Commission in any proceeding 'as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
i HEAL R. GROS $
i couct awoeTat$ AMD TRANSCR$9R$
1313 RHost ISLAND AVEMut, N.W.
(202) 254-4433 WAsisNeTON,DL 20005
' (202) 232 4 600
1 UNITED STATES OF Al\\ ERICA NUCLEAR IEGULATORY COMMISSION 5
BRIEFING ON SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Reg'alatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Monday, November-8, 1993 The Commission met in open
- session, pursuant to
- notice, at 9:30 a.m.,
Ivan
- Selin, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner FORREST J.
REMICK, Commissioner E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433'
k 2-STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
WILLIAM.C-. PARLER, General Counsel JOHN HOYLE, Assistant Secretary o
JAMES TAYLOR, Executive Director for Operations GUY ARLOTTO, Deputy Director, NMSS RICHARD BANGART, Director, Office of State Programs, NMSS
[
JOHN GREEVES, Deputy Director, Fuel Cycle' Safety'and Safeguards Division, NMSS JOHN AUSTIN, Chief, Decommissioning and Regulatory i
Issues Branch, NMSS k
Y r
I 6
O e
W NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C.' 20005
' (202) 2344433
-l
3
.i
-1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S I
2 9*30-a.m.
i 3
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Good morning,. ladies and i
4 gentlemen.
i 5
The Commission is meeting.at this time to 6
receive a briefing from the staff on the-status of the 7
Site Decommissioning Management Plan, or the SDMP.
8 This is one of the most complex undertakings that 9
we've tried, or at least that I've seen in the some 10 years that I've been here.
11 In
- 1989, GAO examined our-past 1
12 decommissioning actions at several facilities of 13 material licensees and recommended that we strengthen l
14 our decommissioning efforts.
- i s
15 In January,1990, the Commission directed i
16 the staff to develop a detailed list.of' contaminated 17 sites, including schedules-and descriptions of site 18 cleanup actions.
This was'the immediate action that'
[
19 generated the SDMP.
20 The first briefing on this was given to 21 the Commission in March of 1990 and this is our third i
22 update.
The document that formed the basis for this'.
j 23 presentation is updated with SECY-93-179, which is now l
24 publicly available as a NUREG,.NUREG-1444.
25 We'll also be briefed on the status of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
l traa 2344433 -
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
i
'4 l
t 1-contaminated' sites under agreement state jurisdiction, l
E t
2-since the program eventually must be extended to all l
3 sites, whether they're under our direct' jurisdiction 4-or under. agreement states, i
5 My own view is that the NRC program is 1
6 making good progress in what is a thorny and difficult-
-1 7
area.
It's just very hard to make wholesale changes.
8 There doesn't seem to be a substitute for taking these j
9 sites on a couple at a. time in learning lessons, butl 10 they still have to be dealt with individually, which 11 is a huge effort.
A lot of manpower, a lot of high-12 level attention, a lot of sleepless nights in working 13 on these things.
Even though we've been making some.
-j i
14 progress, we can't just look back and say, "This.is 7
15 more than we had a couple years ago."
We have to.
16 measure ourselves.against some reasonable standards 17
.and maintain a very high level-of. diligence as we 18 tried to complete and resolve the many. issues 19 surrounding the decommissionin'g of SDMP sites.
20 Commissioners?
21 Mr. Taylor?
22 MR. TAYLOR:
Good morning.
As you know, 23 Mr.
- Chairman, the staff does continue to put a.
24 substantial effort into the resolution of the issues 25 related to site clean-up.
As you noted, each case
[
NEAL R. GROSS
[
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHANGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
5 I
turns out to be very. individual in many ways ' to -
2 resolve the contamination, to-assure that the work is q
.3 going, forward.
The briefing today will as.you 4
mentioned, is an-update, but it will be' presented in i
5 two parts.
First,. John Austin from NMSS will be
-l 6
presenting the principal features of the Site' 7
Decommissioning Management Plan for.the. sites under.
8 NRC jurisdiction.
At the conclusion of his 9
presentation, Dick Bangart will describe some 10 agreement state activities related to this type of 11 effort and their contaminated facilities.
12 I'll ask John Austin to commence.
13 John?
l 14 MR. AUSTIN:
Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Good morning, Mr. Austin.
i 16 MR. AUSTIN:
Good morning.
i 17 This morning I'll be going over the str cus 18 of the SDMP, some of the projected activities that we 19 expect will occur in the next year.
I'll.be 20 discussing some of the lingering issues that are 21 impeding some of the remediations of the sites and 5
22 then discuss some near-term actions that we hope to.
23 take.
24 (Slide)
If I could have chart number 2,
[
h
~
25 please.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
+
a J
'6 1
On the status of the SDMP, we think that:
2 there has been significant progress on the sites l
3 listed in the SDMP.
That progress wqs catalyzed with 4
the' issuance of the action plan in April of 1992.
If 5
you'll recall, at that time ;when we prepared the 6
action plan we were intending to. focus on six sites, l
7 learn some lessons, as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, l
I I
8 and then go into the other sites.
As it turns.out, I
9 the action plan caught the attention of those listed
[
10' and we are, in essence, working on all 50 of the 11 sites, about 50 sites that are on the action plan.
i 12 Even though we didn't budget or anticipate
[
13 the response from' the affected community, we ' are.
14 working on all of them.
The way we have adjusted is j
-'1:
15 that our timing on responding to submittals'from.the
[
' f 16 licensees or former licensees is longer than what we 17 would like to do, but we're trying to give everyona a 18 fair attention in a time frame that they are looking 19 for.
i 20 In FY '93 we did remove one site from the 21 list.
That was the Budd Company.
It was a hot cell 22 contaminated facility.
Also in FY '93 we terminated i
t 23 the Kerr-McGee license in Cimarron, Oklahoma.
But 24 they remain on the list because of their uranium fuel j
t 25 fabrication facility and surrounding areas that need NEAL R. GROSS l
court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
' f (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 -
7 1-to be remediated.
2 One site that is awaiting an 3
administrative modification is the AMAX site in West l
4 Virginia.
That's along the shores of the Ohio River.
~
5 In that case the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Section i
6 151(c) requires the Department: of Energy to take title t
7 to that site once AMAX has satisfied NRC requirements.-
8 There are two issues in AMAX.
One is the funding.
We 9
have directed AMAX to provide -sufficient financial i
10 consideration to the Department of' Energy so that the
[
t i
11 Department of Energy can visit the site.once a year, j
i 12 ensure that the fence around the site is maintained j
t 13 and to replace the fence on something like a 20 year l
14 cycle.
There is agreement among DOE, AMAX and NRC as J5 to the level of that funding and the mechanism.
It's.
l 16 somewhere between $100,000.00 and $200,000.00 that i
i 17 would go into the Treasury.
The interest from that i
i 18 would, in. essence, reimburse the federal government
-i 19 for surveying that site.
20 It was a complicated case because AMAX had 21 processed ores for zirconium and there was thorium 22 contamination in the residues.
We had asked AMAX to 23 remediate the thorium contamination.
They thought J
24 they had accomplished that.
Later there was found to 1
25 be more thorium in the soils. Unfortunately there was
.I i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202)2344433
'I
8 r
1 some zirconium sponge that was in the. soil too an'd f
I 2
when they went back to try to bulldoze the soil up and 3
package it for shipment to a low-level waste site, 4
they -discovered that ' the ' zirconium had been being 5
oxidized and one of the byproducts of.that zirconium' 6
oxidation is hydrogen. The bulldozer hit some pockets -
3 7
of hydrogen, a spark occurred and destroyed'the front i
8 end of a bulldozer.
For overall health.'and safety 9
- purposes, it was thought to put this site under 10 institutional control rather than undertake a very 11 dangerous decommissioning action.
12 UNC Wood River Junction was a site ~ that 1
13 processed fuel under the Nuclear Navy.
There they 14 have remediated the site to our-standards 15 radiologically.
- However, the groundwater is 16 contaminated with nitrates
-in excess of the 17 Environmental Protection Agency drinking water i
18 standards, significantly in excess.
There we do not 19 have jurisdiction over non-radiological contamination, 20 but we have not terminated the license.
Rather, we 21 have worked with the state of Rhode Island to ensure 22 that there is a regulatory agency overseeing that 23 groundwater until it reaches the drinking. water 24 standard.
l 25 CHAIRMAN SELIN: From the licensee's point i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
?
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005
- (202) 2344433 i
F
9 1
of view, is this a fairly seamless regulation or are J
2.
they caught between two regulators - that - we can't i
3 satisfy both at the same time?
4 MR. AUSTIN:
They can satisfy both at_the 5
same time.
The nitrates _ eventually _willLbe flushed 6
out and, in essence, diluted.
That is what the State
'{
7 of Rhode Island has agreed to oversee.
It's a timing t
8 matter.
Is it three years or five-years at which i
9 point the groundwater is acceptable?
I 10 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Yes.
The ' point that I
11 we've tried to be sensitive to is that there often is q.
s 12 not a radiological remediation plan or environmental-1 13 plan, there's a plan which is supposed to take care of l
14 all the different concerns simultaneously, even if.
1 15 they're raised by different agencies.
The question l
16 was is that happening in this particular case?
-j i
17 MR. AUSTIN:-
That is happening in this i
18 case.
We were not prepared to wash our hands and walk l
t 19 away from a known hazard that occurred under an NRC l
N 20 license.
i 21 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Right.
22 MR.
AUSTIN:
UNC has' developed a
23 groundwater monitoring plan that would be-conducted i
24 over a five year period.
They submitted that to the j
25 State of Rhode Island.
Rhode Island commented on it.
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 t
i
=i l 1-UNC submitted a proposed ' final monitoring plan and t
2 they should-have met with the State of Rhode Island 3
last week to talk about a mechanism of making this an 4
enforceable agreement.
Once-that occurs, we would
-l 5
update our environmental assessment ' of ' that _ site. -
6 Staff committed to a public meeting some ten years i
7 ago, so we would honor that commitment and have a.
8 public meeting to discuss the environmental assessment i
9 and what remains at that site.
Once there is a f
10 legally binding agreement between UNC and Rhode' l{
11 Island, at that point we would terminate the license i
t 12 and have no more regulatory interest.
13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
That sounds reasonable.
14 Fine.
Thank you.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Before you go on to 16 another subject, John, just coming back'to the AMAX-
[
17 situation.
That title transfer, DOE title transfer l
18 problem, is there anything generic involved there or r
l 19 is this just very specific to the AMAX site? Is there
{
20 anything involved that one might expect would l
21 interfere with title transfer, DOE title transfers in 22 any other sites?
23 MR.
AUSTIN:
There is no connection
{
24 between this site and, say, like a mill tailing site.
25 It's different legislation.
Section 151(c) says that i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
~ '
11.
~
1 to the effect that anyone that had processed ores for 2
zirconium, hafnium and rare earths shall transfer l
3
' title to that site to the Department'of Energy.
Thi's-f
'4 is the only site that we're aware of that meets that 5
standard.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
So, it's a unique
- l
'l 7
situation?
8 MR. AUSTIN:
It's a unique situation.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Thank you.
10 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
John, for both the 11 AMAX and the Wood River Junction, in June the staff 12 estimated that both of those licenses would be 13 terminated by now. What are the reasons for the delay j
l 14 in the transfer in the case of AMAX and the agreement f
i 15 with Rhode Island?
16 MR. AUSTIN:
On the AMAX situation, we i
17 thought we had a commitment from the Department-of i
18 Energy to accept title to that site on my birthday of 19 this year, which was back in March.
I did not get 20 that gift. What has happened is that when they looked i
21 into the title, there were a lot of clauses, mineral 22 rights attached to the title and the Department of i
23 Energy said they would only accept a title if it was 24 clear of all these burdens.
In fact, the title had a 25 reference to a woman back in the 1890s, as I recall.
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
i f
~.
la 1
1 AMAX then went about clearing the title of i
2' all of those riders on it.
That has.been completed.
i 3
.But the Department-of-Energy is treating.this as_a.
[
4 gift to the U.S. government.
Therefore,,they have to
{
5 go to the Department of Justice-to get-their-j 6
clearance.
'The case has to go up to receive the j
?
7 approval of Secretary O' Leary and all of -that is
)l
.1 8
taking more time tnan what we thought a year ago.
~
9 Candidly, acceptance of this site _ in West i
10 Virginia is not a high priority in the Department of 11 Energy.
We call them on a two to three week basis to
{
i 12 remind them of our interest in ensuring progress on l
r 13 this.
Before Dick Bangart left the Division, he wrote i
14 to his counterpart in the Department of Energy asking
-15 that they accelerate the schedule and they. wrote back j
16 saying that they're going as fast as they can given 17
. all the internal administrative hurdles that they have '
{
18 to clear.
t 19 On UNC Wood River Junction, there was not
.l i
20 ready agreement about how to divide up regulatory 21 responsibility.
The State of Rhode. Island felt that i
22 NRC should oversee the nitrates.
We had a meeting f
23 with them probably about a year, year and a half ago 24 to discuss this.
There has been an exchange of 25 correspondence between the state and NRC on it, but.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE. N W.
l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 i
i 13 1
now we think there is steady progress and think that j
l 2
'there is high hope that they will be removed-from the.
l 3
site in the near-term.
4-Both of them are examples of -- as we get i
5 to the line and think that we've cleared everything i
6 and are ready to cross, something else pops up out cf 7
the woodwork and that's not unusual'for SDMP sites.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So they're not'so I
i 9
much technical safety questions as they'are legal or.
.{
10 bureaucratic or whatever?
'l 11 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes, administrative.
t 12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
That's a better-l'i 13 name.
.i 14 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
May I
follow-up _ on 15 Commissioner Remick's point with respect not so much l
16 to the Rhode Island site, because-that clearly was a l
i 17 question of communication between us and the state 18 agency, by the AMAX site? This is a voluntary program j
i 19 in many respects and its success is based on the 20 licensee's generically feeling that putting in a large j
f 21 effort they will get reasonably prompt settlement of 22 issues that have been dragging on and that are painful 23 and expensive and uncertain for them.
i 24 So, although in that particular case it
{
25 may not be a high priority for the Department.of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 5
i
- 4 14 1
Energy, it is a high priority for us.
If there are 2
problems that have to be taken care of,,they have to 3
be taken care of.-
But if it's a question of getting 4
attention, we should do what's necessary in order to 5
do that.
The licensees need to feel-that their 6
- efforts, when undertaken in good faith, will be 7
rewarded just to get a large liability off their books 8
and get on with their business.
9 MR.
AUSTIN:
In decommissioning, the 10 profits have been extracted and now it's all money
[
i 11 spent and that's where, as you said, it's a voluntary 12 undertaking by the licensees.
13 On the second bullet, we continue to spend 14 significant resources on the Safety Light --
15 CHAIRMAN SELIN: In many ways a voluntary.
16 MR. TAYLOR:
.Yes.
We have --
17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
There is muscle behind r
18 these, but we would much prefer that they see the 19 benefits of cooperating quickly and resolving quickly 20 rather than getting down to that point.
21 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
I'd like to note that 22 the Commission has given us the authority to encourage 23 them with various means.
t 24 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Right.
25 MR. AUSTIN: And we are using those, which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
[
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
-l
15 1
does lead into the Safety _ Light case where : we. did _
.i f
2 issue some orders.
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
This is an adjudication, 4
so please --
}
5 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes.
It is in adjudication.
6 But we're finding that when we get into adjudication t
'7-they become very resource intensive. That's true also l
8 in the Chemetron case.
As you're aware of that'one',
9 we recently issued a confirmatory order further-10-emphasizing the need to have timely submittals within 11 the steps of decommissioning.
I should point.out in 12 the Chemetron case there is a citizens' suit to seek 13 an injunction against Ohio allowing Chemetron to 14 dispose of their depleted uranium on-site.
That's.a.
15 state matter at this point in time and we'll have to i
16 see how that plays out.
17 As you did mention, we did update the 18 SDMP.
I don't know if you have copies of NUREG-1444,-
19 but I have copies available if you would like them.
20 What we intend to do is -- what we've found is that 21 distributing the SDMP to a wide group of interests 22 through a SECY paper was rather awkward.
So, we 23 decided to go the more conventional route and publish 24 it as a NUREG and then in future years, rather than 25 have a very voluminous document as.the SDMP, we would I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
-i
.+
' 16 -
f have supplements to NUREG-1444.
This. NUREG does' 2
contain most of the history of SDMP to serve as the 3
. basis for all supplements.
f t
4 During the next year we. anticipate i
5 removing as many as seven sites from the SDMP.
~*
6 (Slide)
If'I'could have chart 3.
[
t 7
AMAX is one. The current schedule has the t
8 title being transferred in March of'1994.
9 On
- UNC, Wood River
- Junction, I've 10 discussed the nitrate contamination.
There is some 11 strontium-90 in the groundwater, which is a beta 12 emitter.
We believe that the concentration is below 13 the proposed EPA drinking water. standard, but there 14 were several measurements in 1990 that indicated that 15 the gross beta activity in the groundwater was --in 16 excess of -- if it were strontium-90, in excess.of the 17
. drinking water standard. We think that the gross beta 18 is dominated by technetium-99.
What'should.have_been 19 done back then was an isotopic analysis.
We've asked 20 the USGS to go back, take some more samples and do an l
21 isotopic analysis to confirm that it's technetium-99 22 and to confirm that that too is below the EPA drinking 23 water standard.
24 The Pawling site in New York, that is 25 locally known as.the nuclear lake site.
The license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
.~
m 17
- i 1
was terminated back in the '70s, I believe,-but.there l
2 was some cesium and plutonium contamination found in 3
the late
'80s.
Chevron is the owner of the former 4
licensee, but that site had been sold to the National 5
Park Service.
We have worked with Chevron and i
. i I
6 National Park Service to effect an agreement as to who l
7 is going to pay what for the remediation.
8 That agreement was formalized-in a
i 9
confirmatory order to the two organizations.
I think 10 it is a
real success story.
Chevron is very 11 cooperative, very interested in remediating this site.
12 voluntarily.
The site has been remediated to -- we i
13 have a draft confirmatory survey that indicates it has 14 been remediated to the acceptable standards.
The 15 buildings are being demolished and we hope to remove 16 that site within a few months.
That site eventually i
17 will be placed on the Appalachian Trail.
I'm. told-j 18 it's a very beautiful site and that the National-Park 19 Service is anxious to incorporate it into the 20 Appalachian Trail.
21 Texas Instruments in Attleboro, they had 22 buried some material some years ago.
That material 23 has been exhumed and sent to a licensed disposal site.
24 Final survey has been completed and we are trying to 25 get our contractor, Oak Ridge, up there to perform the
' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
28 I
confirmatory survey.
2 The Old Vic case was one in which they had i
3 fabricated nickel-63 sources.
They thought they had i
{
4 remediated it. They had performed a final survey. We f
5 sent Oak Ridge up and they found some hot spots in 6
particular areas where remediation had been 7
undertaken, like in an egress area.
Some of the 8
contamination was spread around. We reached agreement i
9 with Old Vic on how to clear all open iSF 'es and we're 10 preparing a paper to the Commission going through the 11 history of the site and informing you that we're going 12 to remove it from the list.
[
13 (Slide)
Can I have chart 4?
14 The Alcoa site is in Cleveland, Ohio.
15 There they had produced magnesium thorium alloy. They 16 had some contamination in the ductwork and in some of 17 the buildings.
There was also some depleted uranium I
18 contamination that came from the Chemetron facility.
19 They have remediated the buildings.
They conduc72d
t l
20 their final survey.
Oak Ridge'has been there on the 21 confirmatory survey and we're expecting to receive the 22 results of that confirmatory survey early this month.
23 As another example of complications on 24 these SDMP sites, th'e Alcoa application of the -- I
.i 25 think it was in the
'60s,. stated that they may bury i
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND ThNSCRiBERS g
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
1 (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
.. j
1 19 3
1 some thorium in a landfill at their site.
We have i
2 asked Alcoa for any records of any burials back then.
3 They have none, but it's a rather large landfill.
As i
l 4
I recall, it's tens of acres. We're trying to resolve
-t 5
or prove the negative on was there any thorium I
6 disposed of on that site.
What we are anticipating 7
doing is asking Alcoa for aerial photographs of the l
I 8
landfill in the period in which their license was 9
effective in which they were processing material to-10 determine what size of an area might there have been-
~
i 11 thorium buried.
If it's a reasonable size, we may ask 12 for some borings to provide added confirmation that-l l
13 there's no thorium on that site.
i 14 Elkem Metals is in Marietta, Ohio. 'They 15 processed ores for tantalum and niobium.
They had i
16 some thorium contamination in some equipment.
They 17 have worked with the Department of Energy on how to go i
18 about further remediating their. buildings and j
19
' structures.
We' thought the remediation would be done l
l 20 by now, but there was a labor dispute and six weeks 21 were lost.
We expect that early next year that that l
22 site would be suitable for delisting.
23 Pratt and Whitney is in Connecticut. It's 24 the old canal facility.
I think it had to do with the i
25 old nuclear propulsion -- aircraf t nuclear propulsion 1
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
'20 1-operation.
That remediation is essentially contplete j
2 and we-will be going through the confirmatory survey i
3 and declare victory'in that case too.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
What was the 5
material there, John?
+
6 MR. AUSTIN:
I.believe it was enriched f
7 uranium.
They were testing various' fuel matrix 8
combinations.
' i i
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. The list you a
10 just went over.is somewhat different.than the list in
-[
11 the NUREG.
I assume that that's because this is an 12 updated list.
The list in the NUREG does not have the 13 Alcoa and Elkem sites.
It's on page 29 of the
]
14 enclosure.
It's.tn enclosure to the SECY, I believe.
15 MR. AUSTIN:
If the NUREG was published 16 verbatim as we asked it to be published, Alcoa'is 17
. listed as Aluminum Company of America.
Pratt &
18 Whitney is United Technologies.
5 19.
COMMISSIONER-REMICK:
I recognize that.
j 20 It is marked as Pratt and Whitney.
i t
f 21 MR. AUSTIN:
Oh.
i i
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
It's not a major 23 point.
I was just curious.
I assume that your 6
24-current list is an updated list.
l r
25 MR. AUSTIN:
It is an updated list and'I NEAL R. GROSS ij CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
[
(202) 234-4433 -
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
?
V
'21 1
said as many as seven and I have eight on these two 2
briefing charts.
That'could change in six months as 3
something occurs and they're off screen and other 4
cases if something positive happens and they!become a 5
candidate..
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I do see that on
~
7 that chart you do have Alcoa listed as a release 8
partial site.
9 MR. AUSTIN:
And that-has the landfill-i 10 listed.
The landfill is the open issue now.
I 11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:. I see.
12 MR.
AUSTIN:
We would release the 13 buildings.
They could demolish them.
14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:.Okay.
l 15 MR. AUSTIN:
(Slide)
If I could have 16 chart 5, please.
i 17 This chart shows in the dark part of the t
18 bar charts the number of documents or steps that we I
19 have reviewed and completed from 1990 to April of.
20 1993. That is, for example, we have reviewed a' bout 22 21 site characterization reports in the first three years.
- {
22 of the SDMP.
The hashed part of the bar' chart shows 23 the number of completed steps in decommissioning that 24 we expect to complete in the period from April 1,
'93
.}
.s 25 to April 1-of
'94.
It's a measure of the level of NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(."*.02) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
22 I
activity going on at 'these~ sites and shows the i
2 acceleration that has occurred since the action plan 3
was approved by the Commission.
4 4
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Do.you appear to be 5
meeting those because once again this was a June l
6 document, I.believe, that that was in?
7 MR.
AUSTIN:
We appear to be meeting
. I i
8
- those, but it's very hazardous ~ to' make precise
]
9' projections in this program.
10 MR. TAYLOR:
That's why the released site 11 is such a small number.
Right, John?
12 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes.
6 13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But you feel you're f
14 reasonably well on target with that projection?
.Actually, one of my-16 measures of success.is that licensees rarely write to 17 Mr. Bernero or Mr. Tay,1.or complaining about us being 18 the hold-up.
We think we're working with all' of them 19 in a cooperative manner and in a reasonably : timely -
20 manner, but not as fast as all of us would like, but 21 sufficiently prompt to avoid complaints coming from-22 people listed on the SDMP.
l j
23 COMMISSIONER.REMICK:
Thank you.
24 MR. AUSTIN:
(Slide)
If I could have-25 chart 6.
t l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
I (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
~
m
i 23 1
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that GAO had i
2 looked into the decommissioning plan in 1989. The GAO t
3 has completed an audit of the history of the Chemetron t
4 site.
They've published a report.
It's factual.
It k
5 has no recommendations.-
- However, they.have now 6
expanded that audit to the entire SDMP program.
- They, 7
have and are contacting all of NRC's project managers 8
for the cases listed in the SDMP. They have indicated 9
that they are going to contact each of the 10 organizations listed in the SDMP, asking questions i
11 such as why was the site, listed, what's the hazaru to 12 the public, what are the-impediments to timely 13 remediation an'd what needs to be done to get on with 14 it.
15 We think that GAO will be completed with 16 that audit in early 1994 and there is a possibility l
17 that there could be a congressional hearing once that 18 GAO report is issued.
In the past they have been ~
.19 critical of the lack of codified remediation i
l 20 standards.
As you know, we've embarked on the 21 enhanced participatory rulemaking.
-They've been
'l 22 critical of the timing of the decommissioning and we' 23 have issued a
proposed. rule for timeliness -in 24 decommissioning.
It's possible that :they could l
-25 further comment on those matters.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 ~
l
4 24 1
Another issue or lesson learned is that we i
2 have a NUREG-5849 which informs. licensees to our
- l 3
expectations on final surveys, which is the proof.and
'i i
4 the real document that we hope would stand the test of l
5 time, that this site, while contaminated at.one point 6
in time, is now suitable for unrestricted use. That's i
f 7
the fina.1 "urvey that_we rely on the licensee to do.
}
8 But we go a step farther and have our contractor'go 9
out and perform a confirmatory survey.
What is
-l 10_
happening is that our contractor is very ' adept at
=!
11 these kinds of activities.
They prepare a
12 confirmatory survey plan based on their knowledge of I
13 the operations, the history of the site as well as _
}
14 what precisely did the licensee do in their survey.-
[
15 And their plan is biased to find remediation. They'll-16 look, for example, like at 20 percent of the specific L'
17 spots that the licensee looked at and then go off on f
18 their own and look at other areas that were not-
[
t 19 surveyed explicitly by the responsible party.
Li 20 They're finding unacceptable levels of j
j 21 contamination.
In some cases it's just a matter of-l u
e 22 going in and remediating a few areas.
In other cases 23 it raises questions'about the adequacy of_the survey 24 plans.
We are looking to develop some additional 25 guidance to the responsible parties on how to better-I NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f
1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE. N W
'f' (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
- (202) 234 4433
'I
25 1
'go about _ a statistically valid survey of sites to 2
provide-us and the public high. confidence'that there 3
is no unacceptable contamination remaining at - the 4
site.
5
. COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
What comments are 6
you getting on that
- guidance, how to 'do a
7 statistically valid survey?
t 8
MR. AUSTIN: The written comments I am not i
9 familiar with.
I just happen to a couple weeks ago 10 met with the Fuel Cycle Facility Forum, which is an.
11 organization composed of licensees that.' are on ' the 12 SDMP.
In fact,-the group was formed before SDMP was 13 created and their primary interest is how to ensure 14 finality, what do you expect?
There we did get into 15 the issue of surveys.
We offered a workshop on it.
16 I think it was unanimous at that meeting involving-i
]
17 maybe 30 people to have a workshop on surveys to l
18 discuss our expectations.
Their --
i 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
When was that t
20 workshop held?
21 MR. AUSTIN:
The meeting with the forum.
I 22 was a couple weeks ago.
At that point we said we 23 would have a workshop in about six months.-
i 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Oh, it hasn't been e
25 held yet.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433'
.y.
~26 l'
MR. AUSTIN:
It has not been held.
We're 2
still developing -- we have some lessons learned.
We 3
want to go through the statistics both from their 4
perspective and develop a better guidance to Oak: Ridge 5
on clar _fying how far we are going' to go in performing 6
a confirmatory survey, keeping in mind that it's not
-l t
i 7
our contractor's responsibility to develop the r
8 documentation on acceptable levels of contamination.
9 It's the responsible party or
. licensee's
.[
t 10 responsibility to do those surveys.
11 But the biggest issue they brought up at 12 the meeting a couple weeks ago was the issue of 13 averaging.
Averaging becomes an issue in that the 14 survey is not 100 percent direct measurement of all f
15 areas that could have been contaminated.
We require 16 them to create a grid on the soil, on the wall, and l
17 perform direct measurement in areas within that grid 18 and one cannot expect high confidence that there is l
19 not a small area somewhere that has some contamination 20 in excess of the limit.
Therefore,.we allow them to
^l 21 average, what we call hot spot.
Current thinking is 22 now that if the contamination is three times the limit 23 and another adjacent area is one-third the limit, then
-l
- f 24 you can average those two and you meet the limit.
Wo-25 find this averaging procedure acceptable because if Lj i
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
.f (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
-I
')
27
'l one is three times the limit in a zone, one would.have 2
to spend 2,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> in that one spot to receive a.
t 3
dose that is not unacceptable and that's'just not 4
going to happen.
People will move'around.
So, we 5
think we're reasonably conservative.-
'The only
[
6 question is do you put a cap at three times the limit 7
or ten times the limit?
That is a matter that the 8
staff is continuinej to consider.
9 But even though the NUREG is a draf t, it's 10 the best thing that we have on the street and we're i
11 urging licensees to use it.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well,-this kind of i
13 issue was brought up at the participatory rulemaking 14 sessions and certainly it's a matter of considerable 15 interest to certain groups.
I think there is a high 16 sensitivity to this question'of averaging and it would 17 seem to me that it would behoove us to try to.get as 18 much public input on that issue as possible because it l
19 will come time and time again until there'is a general i
20 feeling that, yes, this is a reasonable thing to do.
~
21 From ' a technical point _ of view,
-it sounds very.
22-reasonable.
But if you focus just on the possibility 23 of those hot spots, people sometimes get very upset i
24 about them.
I think that it does seem to me that'it 1
25 shouldn't be something that's 'outside of-the
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
[
. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l
l
28' q
1-participatory rulemaking' framework.
It's something
'l t
2 that's come up very much.in that process-and I-think j
l 3
a great deal of care should be taken in how ' we 4
finalize our' position on how to do this averaging l
5 because it's a very, very sensitive issue.
6
-MR. TAYLOR:
We agree'.
7 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes.-
j 8
MR. TAYLOR:
John, continue..
9 MR. AUSTIN:
Okay.
Another issue which-l 10' I'd like to get into on the next briefing chart later 11 is the thorium disposal: issue.
1?
MR. TAYLOR:
That's-on the next. slide.
13 MR. AUSTIN:
That's on the next slide.
14 I ' ll -- get to that in a moment.
If I could-justLgo 15 through this one.
16 What we've learned primarily through the 17
.Chemetron case is that we have reinforced our desire 18 to cooperate with the states.as we.go through thel l
19 decommissioning of these sites.
As we discussed 20 earlier, there are some issues at these sites that are 21 not under our-jurisdiction but are under the 22 jurisdiction-of a state and they have that regulatory.?
23 interest and we're:trying to avoid a' situation where 24 a licensee has complied with or would want to comply 25 with all-of our requirements, but then to find'at a
[
i NEAL R. GROSS l
'f' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(?O2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 i
29 1
Very late stage _that the state has an interest.
So, f
2 we are trying'to go into something like an outreach 3
program with the states to keep them informed of what 4
we're doing and what our expectations are and what our 5
requirements are.
6 On Sequoyah Fuels, that case reinforces 7
the link between remediation criteria and financial 8
assurance.
One cannot set a level'of funding that.
.i 9
would be required for decommissioning with. confidence 10 if one does not know what the remediation standard is 11 going to be.
There's a direct link and it can involve q
12 a factor of ten or 100 in what the decommissioning 13-cost could be, depending on the specific remediation 14 standard.
f 15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
So how are we 16 dealing with that?
17 MR. AUSTIN:
In the difficult cases, and 18 I would put all of the thorium contaminated' sites in 19 that category, we are exploring the need to perform an 20 environmental impact statement that would look through 21 the options, alternatives, on-site disposal, shipping 22 to a facility like Envirocare, shipping to a used mine l
.i 23 that-would lower the human intrusion potential, 24 examining those potential environmental impacts and I
f 25 arriving at what we would call an ALARA, what is as-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 -
(202) 2344433
30 1
low as reasonably achievable, factoring in cost to-2 establish the remediation standard in that way.
3 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: But you're still 4
left without knowing exactly what the standard is.
j 5
Suppose you dispose on-site?
1 6
MR. PARLER: In view of the fact, at least
.j 7
as I understand it, that some of these things are in.
8 litigation, I would respectfully suggest that you just-9 keep in general, i
l 10 MR. AUSTIN:
Okay.
f 11 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Are you 12 currently using the branch technical position limits-1 13 in this regard?
14 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes, we are using the branch 15 technical position of 1981 for uranium and thorium.
16 We're using concentration limits that the staff has 17
.used over the years for other radionuclides,.like_
j 18 cobalt, strontium, cesium.
And when we come up with i
19 an cddball radionuclide, we try to make a comparison 20 on a risk basis to something that has already been
.[
21 used.
s 22 On the branch technical position, it's
-i 23 options 1 and 2,
but the action plan calls for the 24-staff to look to an ALARA analysis, either'above the 25 line or below the line.
Generically we're looking at j
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
I (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
31 potential 'that the 1
for those where. there is a
2 remediatii 1 standard could be prohibitively expensive, 3
we're looking at the possibility of on-site disposal 4
in the vicinity of the site, disposal in the vicinity 5
of the site, and entertaining the notion of exempting 6
the licensee from the unrestricted use standard 7
provided that there be restrictive covenants.in the 8
deed and possibly other assurances _ that the human 9
intrusion scenario would be acceptably low.
l 10 Another ption that the staff is 11 considering is a perpetual license, in a'way similar 12 to the AMAX case.
In the AMAX case the license would l
13 be _ terminated, but you have the federal government l
14 periodically checking op on that site.
In NRC space, 15 if there were a perpetual license, the concept would i
16 be to establish a fund, the interest from which would 17 allow for an inspection every ten years and it would l
18 be a way to keep that site in the consciousness of the 19 Agency.
20 So, those are the kinds of things we're 21 looking at.
i 22 MR. TAYLOR:- These are just ideasi 23 MR. AUSTIN:
Ideas.
Before we undertake 24 any one of those kinds of things, we would consult 25 with the Commission.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W, (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
32 i
t 1
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
.In looking at places j
[
2 where sort of a judgment as to what's the best outcome 3
given that the finances don't seem to be consistent
[
4 with our standards, those are prima facie places where
{
t t
5 you want the affected public to have'a chance to make i
6 a
statement.
It would not be appropriate for..
[
7 bureaucrats in Washington to be making these tradeoffs
[
l 8
at some site without a strong input from the people' 9
who are involved.
If we're following our standards',
10 the standards have been put out in a rule, they've 11 been commented on, that's one situation. But in these 12 situations when they're really judgment and value' i
13
- calls, the affected parties have to be strongly l
14 involved on each issue.
i 15 MR. TAYLOR: That includes the states too.
16 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Exactly.
17 MR. AUSTIN:
And one mechanism to do that-l 18 is through the environmental impact statement 19 preparation, including meetings in the vicinity of the 20 site.
i 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
- John, on the 22 environmental impact statement, I assume that meets 23 the criteria of a major federal action.
I can i
24 understand how that is a convenient. mechanism to look
.l J
25 at the various alternatives, cost, getting input,.but NEAL R. GROSS
)
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 j
j
33 1
has it met major federal action criteria?
'Not 2
necessarily that it has to, but --
j 3
MR. AUSTIN:
Taking a hypothetical case, 4
if the agency were to approve the disposal of thorium-5 contaminated slags at a concentration such that if in j
6 the future someone were to reside on.that site, in-
~7 future we're talking a thousand years or more, if 8
someone were to reside on that site and-they could
't 9
receive a dose in excess of Part 20 limits, I think i
L 10 that would cross the threshold of a major federal 11 action because in essence that land would be condemned i
12 forever.
So, it's in that context.
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I see.
14 MR. TAYLOR:
Okay.
15 MR. AUSTIN:
All right.
Several of our
[
16 cases have been elevated to upper management because 17.
they involve such complex policy issues that a simple 18 bureaucrat shouldn't make the decision.
It should
]
19 come up to you.
20 MR. TAYLOR:
Skip on for that one..
21 MR. AUSTIN: As I said, we need to clarify 22 our. expectations on' surveys and provide additional-23 guidance on confirmatory surveys.
.)
(Slide)
On the last briefing chart, some i
24 25 of this I've already covered.
There are 14 of our i
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(232) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
t
-34 1
sites that have thorium. contamination, with 'six of 2
them. having over a million cubic ' feet of thorium 3
contamination.
As I recall, two piles of dirt out 4
here during construction of the second building, they'
{
v 5
totaled about 600,000 cubic feet combined.
So, it's
~ l 6
almost twice that volume.
i 7
MR. TAYLOR:
John, you're talking about 1
8 the dirt that was over on the leased Metro site across 9
the street.
i
?
o 10 MR. AUSTIN:
To give you a perspective ~of 11 a million cubic feet.
12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
A million cubic feet is 13 roughly the total amount of volume. low-level waste i
14 that goes into -- other than DOE low-level waste that 15 goes into the civilian sites in a year.
16 MR. AUSTIN:
In a year.
l 17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
That's a huge volume.
[
18 MR. AUSTIN:
With thorium, the issue is 1
19 the direct exposure pathway.
That concern doesn'.t i
20 come from thorium itself, but rather one of the f
1 21 daughter products of thorium.
After about 50 or 60
]
22 years, the daughters have grown back into secular 23 equilibrium, meaning that if you started out with a 24 millicurie of thorium, in 50 years you'd have a 25 millicurie of all of the daughters, including thalium-I NEAL R. GROSS o
COURT 8EPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2364433
35' 1-206, which has a 2 MeV gamma. That's the concern with
'i 2
thorium. Therefore, one has to be concerned about the 3
human intrusion pathway.
4 Under the branch technical position, which-5 discusses the method of putting four feet:of clean 6
soil over a burial, we need to decide how much creditj 7
can be given for that cover.
Currently our dose' I
8 assessments are carried out for a thousand years and 9
one has to wonder would someone -- would wind, water, 10 erosion remove the cover exposing the thorium to the 11 surface again or would someone come in and construct 12 a home with a basement creating another-exposure 13 pathway?
So, the question is how much credit, if any, i
14 should be given for these four feet of clean soil.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
John, I assume that
-16 the concentrations of the thorium in these piles is 17 greater than it would be in the ore originally 18 processed.
19 MR. AUSTIN: Not necessarily. Most of. the
[
20 thorium-contaminated slag has to.do with ores for Li
[
21 which the processor wanted to extract tantalum or f
22 niobium.
They had no desire for the thorium or 23 uranium that happened to be in that ore.
So, I don't-24 recall niobium and vanadium, tantalum concentrations, 25 but it is usually a low percentage within the ore, low l
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS k
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C 2000$
(202) 2344433
[
- 3 6' j
1 being like-10, 20. percent.
It sounds like a pretty 2
rich ore to me..
So, if.that's all'the"' ? removing, 3
the volume, therefore concentration'is not going to be 4
changed that much.
l i
I 5
COMMISSIONER REMICK: So in' nature we have i
6 the same problem.
7 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes.
Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But perhaps-in ' a 9
different location?
Is that the difference?
i I
10 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes.
It has : been r' moved 11 from underground and is now --
1 12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Underground, not 13 surface.
i 14 MR. AUSTIN:
Some of them are surface.
15 MR. TAYLOR:
Some are surface deposit.
16 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes, some of them are.
So, 17
,this is naturally occurring contamination that we're
[
18 confronted with.
l f
'19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But it's in a t
20.
different location, presumably, than it originally 21 was.
I!
22 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes.
j i
i l
23 MR. PARLER:
Presumably it's been removed
?
24 from'its place of deposit in nature and those are the i
E 25 words in the Atomic Energy Act. Whenever that happens NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
'i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433'-
'I h
37 1
we have something to do with the material.
2 MR.
TAYLOR:
John went over this to 3
emphasize the difficulties in dealing with thorium, 4
just as an' example, and there are 14 known sites that 5
we're dealing with.
This was the purpose -- this is 6
a difficult issue.
7 Now Dick Bangart will continue with his l
8 discussion.
9 MR.
BANGART:
Good. morning.
I'll be 10 working from the second package of slides that I hope 11 you have in front of you.
12 (Slide)
I'll go to the first page now.
13 Over the last couple 'of years, as the SDMP 14 has grown in importance within NRC, we have asked on l
15 a
couple of occasions for information from the 16 agreement states about the number.and ' status of
'i 17 contaminated sites and whether or not agreement states 18 have programs to assure-timely remediation of 19 contaminated sites.
We made a ' couple of.what I'll 20 call fledgling attempts in 1990 and 1991 to gather 21 information.
However, the information that we did j
22 obtain was in_no way comparable to-the information 23 that we currently have about the sites listed-in the 24 SDMP.
25 (Slide)
Could I go to the next slide, l
NEAL R. GROSS
.l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W (232) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433'
~
1 38 i
1 please?
f 2
So,-in preparation for this-briefing, we f
3 issued a more comprehensive request for.information-4 about contaminated sites in each of the ' agreement 5
states and we issued that letter actually by facsimile:
- i 6
on September 20th of this year.
We asked if the
[
i 7
agreement states have a documented program. If so, we i
i i
8 asked for a copy of the document.
If ' they have _ a 9
program or activities they're carrying out but it's 10 not documented, we asked for a-- written summary of' i
11 those activities. We asked for the criteria that each i
12 agreement state uses to determine whether a site is f
1 13 sufficiently remediated for unrestricted release.
We
- f I
14 also asked for not only a listing of the contaminated' 15 sites using the same criteria that a site would i
.i f
16 qualify for listing in the SDMP, but we also asked for 17 a written description of each contaminated site, 18 similar to the descriptions that are contained in the 19 latter part of the SDMP.
- t 20 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'm not sure I-i 21 understood what you said.
Did you. find out whether 22 they're using the same criteria as we use or different 23 criteria?
24 MR. BANGART:
We asked for the criteria l
25 that they were using, not to just make a judgment yes i
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AS ENUE, N W.
/
(20?) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
w e
r-
39' 1
or no answer.
That's what we had' asked for earlier.
2 We mostly got yes or no kind of answers that weren't 3
very definitive.
f 4
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Did you find that f
I 5
those criteria are generally 'the same or are they1 i
6 different?
7 MR. BANGART:
I'll get into that.
l
'I 8
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
1 9
MR. BANGART:
It's not a clear picture at-i 10 this point in time --
I 11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
All right.
l v
12 MR. BANGART: -- what the agreement states
-.l 13 are using.
j 14 (Slide)
If I can go to the next slide.
15 overall, we were somewhat disappointed -in
{
16 the initial responses that we received from a number' 17 of the agreement states. 'Many of the responses lacked f
18 the kind of specificity and detail that we requested, i
19 although I must admit that we did not give the i
20 agreement states a-great length of time to gather the 21 information.
It was only'a little over three weeks 22 and that was a f airly.lerge task for an agreement-i 23 state that had a large number of licensees.
.l 24 The numbers on your slide do need to be 25 updated because'we've continued to work informally
~
NEAL R. GROSS-l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, KW.
(202) 2344433 WASH!NG1GN, D C 20005 (202) 2344433 1
I
40 1
with agreement states to get some additional 2
information.
As of close of business last Friday, 28
[
i 3
states have responded.
Twenty-five'have responded in
[
4 writing and three by telephone.
New York is the only f
I 5
agreement state that has not provided information at 6
least in some form, however New York is continuing to
}l 7
work and-they've committed to provide us the 8
information once they've completed their review.-
9 Currently it looks that as many as 64-i 10 sites have been identified in agreement states which t
11 would appear to qualify for an SDMP-type listing.
Of 1
12 that 64, none. are from Illinois.
Illinois i's 13 currently reviewing 80 potentially contaminated sites 14 or actual contaminated sites that might qualify for an 15 SDMP list.
The State of New York has informally
.i 16 indicated that they may have as many as 50 17
. contaminated sites, some fraction of which could 18 qualify for an SDMP-type listing.
19 All of the agreement states have indicated 20 that none of the sites are an immediate threat to 21 public health and safety.
There are appropriate' l
1 22.
controls in place to not only protect public health.
23 and safety but to minimize at least the spread of any I
24 significant contamination.
-l 25 CHAIRMAN SELIN: You can't say 64 and show.
f
?
NEAL R. GROSS j
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS
.l f
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 8
I l
7 2
41 1-89 without explaining the correspondence between the 2
two numbers.
i 3
MR. BANGART:
Eight-nine-is a number --
[
4 I've got about six numbers on my slide here.-'The'89,
[
5 the total there was meant to include both those that
-i 6
appear to definitively meet the SDMP criteria, plus' i
t 7
additional sites that potentially could be listed on 8
an SDMP-type list.
But that number was the number we 9
had at the time the slides were submitted to SECY.
{
10 CHAIRMAN SELIN: But the conclusion should
]
11 be that there are at least as many sites in the 12 agreement states as we've identified in the --
-l 13 MR. BANGART:
Yes.
That's a good general 1
14 conclusion at this point.
l 15 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Is that really what'we f
16 should be concluding?
17 MR. BANGART:
Yes.
Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Did the states l
19 identify what criteria they used to make the 20 conclusion no immediate public threat?
You're.
21 referring to Part 20?
'22 MR. BANGART:
It's the same kind of basis i
23 that we use for SDMP sites.
For the most part the 24 sites are licensed, they're under control.
They've
'f 25 found buildings locked. They have monitoring programs-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433
' WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4 433
I 42 l
1
.in place for 'those. where there's groundwater 1
2 contamination potential.
So, it's based in part on i
3 the same -- identically the same kind of information f
4 that we use..And for the most part there's good idea j
5 of the amount-of contamination and the type of t
6 radioactive material that's involved with the site or l
t 7
the building.
8 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
If there were an 9
immediate threat they wouldn't be on the SDMP, they.
10 woeld be subject to immediate action.
.l 11 MR. BANGART:
That's true.
That's true.
l
~
12 It doesn't appear, however, that there is t
13 any concerted effort by most of the agreement states
[
14 to implement a program similar to the SDMP to assure-15 that timely remediation of sites does occur.
Most of l
16 the states indicated that they have.few problem 17
. contaminated sites, that when there is a problem they 18 address the need for action on a case-specific basis.
.j 19 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
20
- Finally, all of the agreement states 1
21 responded that they do use or rely on NRC clean-up-22 criteria that are contained in the SDMP and the action i
I 23 plan, at least in part and they use that to establish..
'l 24 the criteria for when a
site is suitable for f
25-unrestricted release.
i, NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
A 4
43-1 There were some puzzling responses though.
i 2
A number of the agreement states referenced just reg.
3 guide 1.86 as clean-up criteria. Reg. guide 1.86 only 4
contains release criteria for surface contamination on 5
components or structures.
So, obviously an agreement 6
state couldn't use reg. guide 1.86 alone if there were 7
a site that had soil slag or' groundwater kind of i
8 contamination.
So, we'll be following them up to try 9
to better clarify responses where the state only.gave 10 us reg, guide 1.86 as a reference.
f i
11 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Do the states 12 seem to have any restricted use or perpetual care type 13 provisions?
14 MR. BANGART: The answer to that question 15 wasn't specifically addressed in the responses, but it 16 appeared that there were a number of facilities that 17 they identified where especially it was a former 18 20.302 or 304 type on-site burial where the plan of-f 19 action by the state appeared to be to have 20 continued with a license in place for at least some l
I 21 indefinite period of time and to continue to monitor 22 the site.
Those situations like that were found,-I
{
l 23 think, more often than not where it was state-owned
+
i 24 property.
[
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I'm a little puzzled j
i a
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBE 5$
f 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
~
44 1
here as to why in the agreement states-there seems-to 2
be what, if I interpret what you've said', so little 3
interest in really pushing proper remediation of these
-4 sites when there is a great deal of interest. in states 5
that are non-agreement states.
6 MR. BANGART:
That's a good question that 7
leads directly into my next slide on agreement. state 8
reactions.
l r
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Oh, you 're welcome.
[
10 MR. BANGART:
(Slide)
Just as you said,.
11 in general the agreement states don't believe that-
'.I 12 remediation of contaminated sites is as difficult or
[
13 perhaps as significant a problem as it is in the non-
[
I 14 agreement states.
They've described four reasons why r
15 they believe that's the case.
First of all, a number 16 of the agreement states believe they are actually more a
17
, experienced in the regulation of contaminated site or 18 building remediation than the NRC.
They say that 19 because they've had NARM/ NORM radiation f
20 responsibilities even before they became an agreement f
21 state in some cases and indeed a number..of them have
-l 22 cleaned-up radium-contaminated buildings or
[
23 facilities.
Colorado is probably - one of the most.
i 24 noteworthy examples.
They've cleaned up a number of 1
p 25 radium-contaminated facilities.
They've also had the
- l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000$
(202) 2344433 t
I
i 45 1
experience in Grand Junction, Colorado'of remediating 2
residential construction where uranium mill tailings 3
were used and created a problem.
+
4 There's also a general sense that there's 5
a higher fraction of NRC licensees that are authorized 6
to possess long-lived radioactive material in loose i
7 form.
I don't know if that's true or not, but at i
i 8
least based on the lists that we have now it looks 9
like there may be some truth in that.
The number of
.{
10 sites that have currently been identified in agreement 11 states that contain large volumes of soil with thorium t
12 or uranium contamination appears to be relatively
'i i
13 small in number.
j 14 The agreement states also believe that l
15 they actually have a better first hand knowledge of 16 contaminated sites in their
- states, since they 17 individually possess fewer licensees than the NRC l
18 does.
They don't have, for the most
- part, a
19 decentralized organization like we do with our l'
20 regional offices.
Also, their programs have been in 1
21 existence for a fewer number of years than the AEC/NRC
[
t 22 regulatory program.
l i
23 Finally --
24 COMMISSIONER REMICKi, Excuse me.
25 MR. BANGART:
Yes.
r
^!
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4 33
46 l
1-COMMISSIONER. REMICK: -
Couldn't. some. of 2
those same' arguments be made by states that are not-g 3
agreement states, some of 'those.- same.-arguments, e
4-experience with NARM/ NORM than'the NRC?
a 5
MR. BANGART:
Certainly - they could be,
.[
6 yes.
7 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Do we hear that' from' h
8 those states?
P 9
MR. BANGART:
I have not heard.that in my 10 experience in working on the SDMP.
t 11
-MR. AUSTIN:
.I_ haven't either.
]-i 12 MR. BANGART:
This is a take.
I'm just
-h 13 telling you what we heard mostly at the last all 14 agreement state meetings held in Tempe.
.{
15 Finally, at least at this point in. time, 16 and this is one of the real questions, it appears'that' i
17
.the same degree.of public media and' -political 18 attention that some of the SDMP sites have received is 19 not occurring in agreement states.
So, they don't 20 feel the same kind of outside pressures that'NRC is i
21 receiving.
22' COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I' wonder if it 23 wouldn't pay for us to look in a little more detail at 24 their claims there that maybe there is something that f
i 25 we might learn from some of those programs. ;If they l
3 i.;
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPC TERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f
1323 RHOL. ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
_f (202) 2344433 WASHitwGTON, D.C. 20005 (232) 2344433
?
F 47
}
-1 feel that-they-have had some experience successfully i
2 in dealing with these issues and if the result of that 3
is less public concern, perhaps --'I'm just offering j
j 4
it as a perhaps that's one reason they're not 3
5 experiencing the same kind of pressures, that maybe I
6 that is something that it pays for-us to look at'that 7
we might learn from.
8 MR. BANGART: And I think that the actions
[
l 9
that we're planning to take will get. exactly that-i 10 ir.f ormation,
i 11 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I'd like to follow-up on j
t 12 Commissioner Rogers' comments.
First of all; the l
[
13 question isn't so much how to' clean up the sites, but f
14 whether to clean up the sites.
In other words,~maybe 15-that individual states have something to teach other 16 states or us about effective measures.
But:the main-t i
17 question is whether to move or'not rather than what-l 18 steps to take.
At least that's what I think is.the i
19 main question.
Obviously they're tied together 20 because different steps will have different financial 21 implications.
22 The second is that this presents a classic 23 example of question of compatibility rather than 24 adequacy.
I tend to think of adequacy as an issue, t
25 sort of a state by state issue.
Is your program i
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
f (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C.20005 (202) 234-4433
43 1
adequate? Compatibility is maybe it's adequate looked 2
at by itself, but if you look at the aggregate of 3
states do you have a program -- I mean do we h' ave a 4
4 situat'on that's a threat to health-and' safety rather 5
than an individual state?
We've always said with 6
these individual sites they're not-immediate threats 7
one at a time.
It's the universe of sites just 8
waiting for an accident to happen that concerns us 9
rather than just looking at them one at a time.
10 Certainly if you double or triple the number of sites 11 that have the risk of contamination if something is 12 handled poorly, we have an aggregate problem if not an 13 individual problem.
14 Tied to that is a credibility question 15 that an individual state which has only a couple of 16 three sites may not be feeling much pressure, but the 17
. question of confidence in the sites and the program as 18 a whole is affected by these.
19 To make a long story short, I believe 20 Commissioner Rogers was indirectly expressing some 21 unease at this lack of urgency.
I would like to 22 express it directly.
23 MR. BANGART: And I think the actions that 24 we have planned will deal with that question.
I would 25 like to nos go to the last slide that shows this --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
49:
t 1
COMMISSIONER. REMICK:
- Dick, just~ one 2
related comment.
3 MR. BANGART:
Yes.
t s
4 COMMISSIONER-REMICK:
It would be i
5 interesting to know what' criteria were used in the 6
sites that were decontaminated.
7 MR. BANGART:
We. don't'have a great deal j
i 8
of detail on that. That was one of the questions that i
9 was asked earlier.
As I understand the responses,'we 10 did not get a lot of detail.
I ~ think - that was'a 11 specific question that was asked in 1991.
That is the 12 first thing that we need to do is' to continue to 13 follow on with the states and get additional 14 information or clarifying information on the responses 15 that they sent in.
16 We also plan to conduct an agreement state I
17 workshop on contaminated site remediation, following
[
f
't 18 up on your recommendation, Mr. Chairman.
We plan to j
z 19 conduct that sometime in the first half of 1994. That i
20 will be an opportunity for us to share NRC experiences ~
21 with the agreement states in implementing.the SDMP.
i 22 It.will also be an opportunity for us to learn more 23 about the agreement state programs or activities that 24 they're implementing to address contaminated site-25 remediation.
So with -that additional follow-up NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 t
m 7
l 50 l'
information, with the workshop behind us, we'll be in' 2
a position to determine if the NRC needs to initiate.
.l 3
any actions that would more strongly. encourage. states i
i 4
to implement programs or to have them' establish formal
.i 5
programs.
6 We've looked at some options that the NRC 7
could pursue to initiate further action in agreement 8
states.
One option would include extending the._ORISE 9
contract to ~ have ORISE review agreement _ state.
10 terminated license files.
I 11 MR. TAYLOR:
Say what that_is.
12 MR. BANGART: ORISE is Oak Ridge Institute 13 for Science and Education.
They're the' contract 14 that's reviewing previously terminated NRC license' 15 files for potential candidate contaminated sites that 16 need further remediation.
17 A variation of that option would be for 18 NRC to help fund agreement states to hire their own 19 technical systems contractors to review terminated 20 license files, however that may not be a viable option 21 as I've just recently learned because OGC provided us
[
22 a. legal opinion about whether or not the NRC can 23 directly fund agreement state programs or partly fund 24 agreement state programs.
And obviously any funding i
. 25 option has associated with it equity quection.
NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS b
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
t 51 i
4 1
- difficulty of NRC licensees paying at least in part l
2 for agreement-state programs.
3 We also can use our routine methods of
[
4 interactions with agreement states to encourage more 5
aggressive programs on their part. That would include
-[
v 6
our agreement state letters, meetings and workshops j
7 like the one planned for next year.
And also we can 8
encourage.or require through our biannual agreement 9
state program reviews.
10 And as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we are 11 considering the issue of clean-up of contaminated 12 sites in both the common performance indicators that 13 we're developing to assess both regional and agreement 14 state programs as well as the new compatibility policy 15 that we'll be developing.
16 That concludes my presentation.
17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I have several comments 18 I'd like to make and then turn to my colleagues.
1 19
- First, this is, I believe, the first f
20 public meeting in which we've discussed both the --
1 21 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
I 22 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
-- NRC -- well, I think f
23 that's a big step in the right direction.
24 The second is, I
certainly share f
25 Commissioner Remick's concern about let's know the l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT BEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS h
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. '
(202) 7344433 WASHING 10N. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 f,
i i
-52 1_
facts before we go off too far, know what the criteria 2
are, whether the sites are measured by comparable
.l 3
criteria, comparable standards, et' cetera.
4 The third is,-what's sauce'for th'e goose l
'l 5
is sauce for the gander.
If this-is a program that n
6 deserves the attention we're giving it in our states, "f
7 it deserves comparable attention in the agreement 8
states.
I mean, the standard..is are ' citizen's I
i 9
comparably protected regardless of what state they-:
10 live in.
If not, then we will have to reconsider our q
?
11 own program.
But the trends are such that there will j
,1 12 be more agreement states,.not fewer, and there will be-
.i 13 a lot more licenses in agreement states five-years.
14' from now than there are today in the sense that the.
15 states that are moving towards-agreement state status
-16 tend to be states with a lot of licenses.
i 17 I think these issues of compatibility, not l
18 just for form's sake, but where there's a substantive-19 measurable impact on health and safety, or at least on j
20 indicators that we think are correlated with health 21 and safety, have to come forward.
f 22 To make a long story short, I hope we 23 don't have to wait until we have disastrous headlines 24 and hearings before the agreement states decide that 25 this is an issue that they should get ahead of, but NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C,20005 (202) 234-4433
53=
1 might.nove before it's a crisis - not after it's 'a f
2
-crisis on this program.
3' Commissioner. Rogers?
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Thank you..
5 I just wanted to soy that I do indeed 6
share the Chairman's view on a different perception of 7
agreement states on how fast it is important to move i
8 on these things.
I am concerned about that.
9 I'd like to say that I thought this was'a 10 really -- an excellent briefing.
It had a lot of 11 detail in it and maybe that's a little tedious to some 12
- extent, but I
found it very useful and very 13 illuminating.
I thought it was really first class.
14 I enjoyed it.
15 I have a couple of questions about some 16 things that we didn't really quite touch on-
.r 17 specifically that -I wonder if you might be able to s
18 throw a little light on the status of.
One is'the
~
19 Apollo site, B&W Apollo site, where that stands.with 20 respect to the local concerns about acceptable 21 conditions for clean-up.
I know I heard a great deal 22 about that at one of the workshop meetings from people-23 and I've since heard from them again..
I didn't hear 24 where that stands from the presentation today. If you 25 are in a position to say anything about it and-.can a
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
{202) 2344433
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
54
-1 very briefly, I'd 'like to be brought' up to date, on it..
2 MR. AUSTIN:
If-I could ' start out with the 3
survey results at Apollo and then ask.Keith McDanielf
..p 4
if he could comment on where.it stands now.
5 Apollo thought.they had
' adequately 6
remediated their site to the branch technical position
=t i
7 option 1.
Oak Ridge went in to perform its' 8
confirmatory survey and, as I 'said, they did two
~
9 things, Oak Ridge did two. things.
One was they.took 10 samples, 20 percent of their samples in spots ~where l
I 11 B&W had taken samples to check on the adequacy and the 12 Oak Ridge results from those confirmed B&W's results.
13 Oak Ridge then stepped off of the specific areas where if 14 B&W had taken these samples and'took 80 percent of its'
[
15 samples in those kinds of areas.
They found a rather 16 high percentage of unacceptably high contamination.
i
-t 17 One of the lessons learned in that case 18 was that we need to better define what a final survey 19 by a
licensee is because B&W, in
- essence, was.
20 remediating and surveying at the same time.
That is, 21 they would find a hot spot and they would remediate' it.
22 and continue high-level, remediate it and~didn't step 23 back and say, "What is this telling us as we sit here 24 and find all of these hot spots in the area?" We have 25 worked with.B&W to come up with a plan or developing t
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) F34433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
i 55-I a' plan on-what additional steps.need'to be.taken.
1 2
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It seems to me that 3
that approach has an inherent ~ fallacy in it, built
'I
-4 into.it as to what you can conclude when you're.all 5
done.
It sounds to me like a very bad experiment.
l 6
MR. AUSTIN:
And we're working on trying
-7 to develop better guidance to give us a better i
8 statistical basis for saying that whatever 9
contamination out there there is that remains,.that l
10 that will not result in unacceptable doses assuming i
11 rather conservative human-intrusion scenarios.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well'. now, your 13 paper, the SECY indicated that this was a site that 14 would be -- that everything would be dealt with in 15 1994, I believe it was.
Does that still hold true?
16 Is your prognosis in the SECY still correct or have-
~
17 these problems surfaced since the time of the writing 18 of that SECY?
19 MR. AUSTIN:
My impression.is that that' 20 projection still exists and is doable.
There is a 21 license condition that B&W monitored groundwater for 22 one year to provide a higher assurance that there's no 23 unacceptable contamination.
But if I could ask Keith' l
24 his impression.
Keith is the project manager.
25 MR. McDANIEL:
Good morning.
I'm'Keith.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
' f232) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
)
t 56.
l t
1 McDaniel.
.2 The current schedule right now is for.B&W i
3 to finish their excavation of.that property in March.
i 4
of 1994.
Following excavation, they'll begin their 5
groundwater monitoring program which will last a year.
6 So.that takes us to March of 1995.
We'll review the.
i i
7 groundwater data at that point and we'll make a 8
determination if the site is releasable or not.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
Fine.
All 10 right.
Thank you.
That's helpful.
.t 11 The other site that I'd like to hear ~a i
12 little bit about if you can, you touched on the 13 problem, the thorium problem, but the Shieldalloy 14 Metallurgical Corporation in New Jersey which we've 15 heard about several times from people on the Hill.-
I-16 wonder if you can tell us where that stands.
I.know 17
.there's a question of to what extent NRC has any 18 responsibility at all there, but nevertheless-it's'a l
19 big issue.
20 MR.
TAYLOR:
There was a paper just 21 recently sent up on that, sir.
I don't know if you've 22 seen it.
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Maybe I haven't seen 24 it yet.
25 MR. TAYLOR:
I'm sorry, sir.
That has a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
~
57 1
'very it.was dated. October 29th.
It's a quite.
2 recent paper, but we did -- that is a very important 3
issue'and we have covered it in the paper.
We can 4
give you --
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, if you think 6
it's adequately covered in the paper, then there's no-l 7
need to spend time today on it.
8 MR.' TAYLOR:
Yes, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
All right.
'The 10 other issue I'd like to hear a little bit a' bout was 11 one that was raised in the SECY on page 19 that dealt 12 with the State of Massachusetts and total lifetime 13 risk questions.
Is there anything you can say-on 14 that?
The state suggested that they felt they might r
15 want to set lower standards than those of NRC.
Lower t
16 meaning more stringent, I take.it.
The NRC. legal 17 staff disagreed and stated that under the Atomic 18 Energy Act states were not given the authority to set-19 such standards.
i 20 Is it possible to say anything about where 21 that stands, the discussion of that issue with the
-22 State of Massachusetts?
23 MR. PARLER:
I'll have to follow-up on 24 that and'I'll inform you and your colleagues.. I can't 25 respond to it now.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
- (20?) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 r
58 l
COMMISSIONER' ROGERS:.
All right.
. Fine.
[
d 2
Thank:you.
y 3
That's all that.I have.
Thank you very-4 much.
i 5
CHAIRMAN SELIN:' Commissioner Remick?
l 6
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
/I just, have ; one 7
remaining question.
In the agreement state response, 8
is it apparent that any particular states seem to have
~
9 a concentration of sites compared to other' states?
4 10 MR. BANGART:
Texas provided a number of
- ]
11 candidate sites.
A large fraction of those,'however, 12 appeared to be sites that were contaminated with l
13 uranium mill tailings which wouldn't. necessarily 14 qualify for the SDMP, but they had ten that appeared 15 to qualify using the same criterias forLthe SDMP.
I 16 suspect that when Illinois finishes their review and 17
.New York finishes their review that they may have'a
- t 18 number.of sites that rival the number of sites that 19 were identified in Texas.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I see.
Okay.
t 21-Well, I join the comments in finding the 22 briefing very informative and I also think it's an J
23 excellent idea to include the agreement state sites as' 24 well as our own license sites.
i 25 MR.
AUSTIN:
Commissioner Remick, ' you NEAL R. GROSS.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 ~
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
' (202) 234-4433.
i
=.
J 59 1
-previously'had asked about the Pratt-Whitney. site and' 2
-wh'at they did-there.
I responded that they possessed
[
3 high-enriched uranium.
The contamination of concern' 4
-is fission products, not the high-enriched uranium.
5 I just wanted to clarify that.
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I see.
Fission:
7 products -- what was the source of the fission-8 products?
9 MR.
AUSTIN:
I believe they' did i
10 criticality type --
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Really?
-12 MR.-AUSTIN:
-- studies of the fuel.
l 13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner de-Planque?-
j 14.
. also agree-
-COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
I 15 it's been an excellent briefing.
I'm particularly 16 looking forward to more definitive information from i
17 the states, the criteria they're using for release and j
18 what types of options they have available in terms of 19 restricted use or perpetual care.
You stated it 20 yourselves that in many cases they've had a lot more 21 experience with some of these sites.. So, I would also 22 look forward to what we can learn from what they've 23 done in the past and are doing now-4 24 Thank you.
l 25 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank you very much for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 23'-4433 l=
l 60 I
1-the presentation.
We'll'be looking forward to the l
2 updates.
It's good to get into the detail and perhaps I
3 by the time of the next update it'will be possible, 4
there will be enough cases to draw some more general
-?
5 sketches of how we're doing'and whether we are on an 6
achievable path or do we need a mid-course correction, t
7 Thank you very much.
j 8
(Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m.,
the above-9 entitled matter was concluded.)
10 i
i 11 12 l
13 f
-1 14 15 16
=l
'I 17 18 I
19 20 f
21
)
22 I
23 24 i
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
j (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
4 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meetirg of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON SITE DECOMMISSIONING i
MANAGEMENT PLAN PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND.
i DATE OF MEETING:
NOVEMBER 8, 1993 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription l
is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
b v
Reporter's name:
PETER LYNCH l
3 a
t l
J
)
i l
HEAL R. GROSS '
coUer assoevgas me vaanscenens 1333 EMOSE ISLAND AVEMUE, M W.
]
(SW) 334 4433 W&ggeMON. 94 30005 (202) 332 8000 l,
A O
a 4
4 0
i l
SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN 1
COMMISSION BRIEFING NOVEMBER 8,1993 4
. I v
.-m+- mm-me
-- w
. s
- - + -
m e - - -, -.
u-.--n++..+ew-v
=
..*-er
+-va.e w<.-m,se~.--=m
.+---v
%~.-w, e
v.~.--wvv ww-1-=-&.
we w
c=
vmw-w-e+*
w e e.,*pe e---.,.
--e-4.=
1 SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN-STA11JS:
Significant progress toward remediation _being made at SDMP sites
- e e.
One site (Budd Company) removed from the list in FY93.
One site (AMAX) awaiting completion of the DOE title transfer process e
e
. One site (UNC, Wood River Junction) awaiting resolution of state jurisdiction issues Significant resources expended on Safety Light case litigation and resolving issues involving Chemetron's Harvard and Bert Avenue sites and on Sequoyah' fuels e
Updated SDMP in June 1993 (SECY-93-179). Publish as NUREG-1444.
During the next year anticipate removing as many as seven sites.from..the list J e
Chart 2:
w t-en m w+ww--
a =
+*+-tw-wwe - r<rew v++4 v-vw-==r%-
m e-ww"v~-'-
-=ww-+-e--Wr*
vw y-'+w-=-
-rw-**t* *,,gev~w--*-
w
- =e-vv
-vw*
++=m*ca-e rvc ew ry
<-+Sv+e ' v-
&e vvir w gw-ww -.avon -., te av w e e, w www.m.ev.*v,.%,+ve-me v e -v e-v---wr*++er+w
.-44
- e-e e ~" tr
L CANDIDATE SITES FOR DELISTING
- eAMAX Funding for maintenance of site i
NWPA Section 151(c) transfer to DOE e-UNC, Wood River Junction Nitrate contamination Sr - 90.
- Pawling Nuclear Lake Buildings / soil remediation
- TI - Attleboro -
Exhumed buried uranium Final survey completed Scheduling confirmatory. survey
- Old Vic Final and confirmatory survey completed Chart 3 u
4'%'esFw T - E.M'Ge e
hDe4-W' t'wwi=*a.
wm "Tww-1-**va
- W
*vw'9'v' te'B'-P*P-neeer i8'MP e
w '--"
9**-4F4fw-e**-
&8-u'+'-
- +9NT'
'M-+ll--W P
C
- f 9 P t"-9
'O'"WT-
- Fw7%
1
e-'te
NT-"
W
--69T-tr--eilW
%~
9
- W'"$'-Wte'98-*t-WW' 1 - We eesvvw'F b
i CANDIDATE SITES FOR DELISTING < cont d>
- - Alcoa Final survey compieted
- Landfill?
- Elkem Metals Remediation essentially completed e Pratt-Whitney
- Remediation essentially completed Chart'4 1
5 S
3 5
U 0
tr.
T 3
4 a
A h
0 9
C T 4
/
- j!!::li.j
.: l i
3 1
9
/
S 4
9 1
Gl
- i!!.::!,i.j
.:l
- 6 s
3 2
Ni e
9 r
/
t 1
p
~
i I
/
NA S
4 gi
- 0 Oy 2 P A
- l!.j
.:l SB M W I
D S d
- 6 S
I i!::li.l
.: j Mt 2
1 3
e 8
f 9
e o
/
Ml 1/
g 0 #
4 p
Om
- .f.:f ;1 e
Co ro f
EC eB D
x i5 e
EB n
To a
l
,0 P
I S T g
s n
)
)
t y
e n
1 1
r e
t i
o
(
(
De n
o v
S o
i i
t l
p r
Ei a
a l
i t
z t
a e
u e
s i
t v
R S
s s
Tv i
r i
o i
e m
a r
y y
m Ci b
p o
r t
t e
m c
l Ec a
u p
v o
e u
a R
o r
S A
r t
A c
J a
h P
P S
m e
O C
D D
r D
l i
a f
R n
n
=
o i
P F
P C
D
)1(
Il!ll lll
T-SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN (Continuedi ISSUES:
GAO is auditing SDMP as followup to Chemetron Significant residual contamination found in confirmatory surveys Thorium disposalissue. (see following chart)
Coordination with the States on solid / hazardous waste issues SFC - financial assurance and remediation criteria ACTION / RECOMMENDATION:
e Several cases elevated to upper management: Chemetron, Shieldalloy, SFC, l
Safety Light e'
Clarify ' expectations on surveys, including workshop in about 6 months '
a
~ Additional guidance on confirmatory surveys.
l e
- Chart 6 ~
L.-..=..,..-..-.~.---.-.-.------.L~.-----.---~~-----------------'-~~-----~~-
SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN (Continuedi THORIUM DISPOSALISSUE:
e' 14 SDMP sites contain large volumes of thorium contaminated soil and slag e
Waste volumes at these sites range from 20,000 ft' to 10,000,000 ft' 6 sites exceed 1,000,000 ft' or High direct exposure rates e
Credit for cover over burial?
e Altemative disposal methods - ALARA e.
Environmental Impact Statement?
Chart 7
- - = =,,
..a.,
.c.+
ww--.e+we-
.5-.e.~.s-.-em
- -. =. =
.-,e,+%-*
r,.----*-.%'.se*e++t-see~-n w-=+wme.
r=W-m eam*+-
-m..re-
..m-+a e.
+e+es.e4-s
~--=-+=.-,-++W-ee a-
'+w-+,
- *- e se e w + +.
.--w--es,.-m-,e
,c.=e-rw---e-ne-w+<v-
AGREEMENT STATE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS j
BACKGROUND 1990 Letter to Agreement States Requesting Identification of State Sites.
1991 Letter to Agreement States Requesting a
Update I
- f i
CLRRENT IMTIATIVE I
i OSP Letter (9/20/93).to Agreement States Requesting l
Specific Information:
l Does State have specific program for management L
.of problem contaminated sites? Provide or summarize program for NRC.
I What criteria'are used'by the State to determine-if a site can be released for unrestricted use?
Provide a listing of contaminated sites.
Provide a description of each identified site.
1
...m
-m..
--m --
.nsw-__--.m--,
.ea-( e u.
-c.w... - -4e wes.-e~e-i.*ee--.e-wwen*w--=
w-e-r ee
-e ww.e w
,eie--
-u+ wen e
= ear v -+- m a++e-w-c=-o-n w e ~- m -
--e e- - ee w-+ u e= i e tr
- w-e
v RESULTS OF SERVEY 25 States Responded (22 in writing - 3 by telephone)
Lack of Specificity - Follow-up Calls Required e
89 Potential:SDMP Sites Identified by States.
Most Site Descriptions Responsive No Immediate Public Threat e
Few Actions. Identified.to Prompt Remediation 4
e Some States Reviewed Terminated License Files.
~
. =
- ._-.-..-..=_.._----
RESLLTS OF SERVEY (Continued)
All States Indicated SDMP Guidance, In Part, Considered or Applied - 3 States Provided Copies of Guidance L
i.-
4
..--,---,-,.--....--.....--;-......--.--.---.--.~,,-,--..-_--,-----..---_-
(
L AGREEMENT STATES REACTIONS Comments From 10/24-27/93 Agreement. State Meeting States Experienced in Management of Remediation l
of NARM/ NORM Facilities / Sites Small. Percentage of Licensees Authorized to Possess Radioactive Material in Any Form Age and/or Size of an Agreement State Program Results in First-Hand Knowledge of Current and Former. Facility / Site Status 5
.-.---w
--.<-.i-.r e
- r. -.
.c
.-w=n-s.a 4..-v*
w v.wn.,
-~m,,-w
.w,r-whw
-w,v.
.s.w-.
ic--
w-w,-+e+.--
.ey,cru-..-*
- w s[u w v*~~w*
i NEXT STEPS e
Continue Followup on Missing or Deficient Details e
Agreement State Workshop in 1st Half of 1994 Evaluate Whether Additional Agency / Agreement State Actions Needed
. Extend ORISE Contract to Agreement States?
Fund Technical Support of Terminated Licenses in Agreement States?
Encourage Actions Through All-Agreement State Letters, Meetings / Workshops, Performance-Indicators and Compatibility
.,.-.--.---..--..._..R._-..,..,._,.
. - -, -