ML20133N437
| ML20133N437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/24/1994 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | De Planque, Rogers, Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133N206 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-448 NUDOCS 9701230290 | |
| Download: ML20133N437 (11) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ . _ _._.. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __.__ _ _ _ . _ . _
i ,
i-
\j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
- , ,, j wasaameron, o.c. memesm '
%,...*f August 24, 1994 l
5 l MEMORANDUM FOR: The Chairman i Commissioner Rogers
! Commissioner de Planque FROM: James M. Taylor '
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
AGREEMENT STATE SITE DECOPMISSIONING MANAGEMENT l PLANS (SDMP) - FOLLOW UP BACKGROUND On March 18, 1994, in response to a November 18, 1993, Staff Requirements I Memorandum, a status report on staff efforts to obtain information from the Agreement States on their radiologically contaminated sites was provided to the Comission. At that time, we indicated a report would be provided after the SDMP Workshop for the Agreement States. Staff committed to compile information obtained from the States on criteria used for release of contaminated sites including those contaminated with naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM). This memorandum reports on the March 23, 1994 SDMP Workshop and the information obtained from the States since the Workshop and from other SDMP-related activities such as the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards' (NMSS) June 1, 1994 Termination Survey Workshop.
SDMP AGREEMENT STATE WORKSHOP The March 23 Workshop was attended by 30 representatives from 25 of the 29 Agreement States. The Workshop was also attended by representatius from three of the four potential Agreement States, Massachusetts, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Four members of the General Accounting Office were present at the session to obtain background for the report they are preparing on NRC and Agreement State SDMP programs for the Senate Government Affairs Comittee (Glenn) and the House Government Operations Committee's Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources (Synar).
At the Workshop, hosted by the Office of State Programs (0SP), representatives from NMSS Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) gave introductory and technical overview presentations. A copy of the Workshop notebook which includes slides from the statf presentations is available from OSP. Attachment 1 is a copy of the transcript of the Workshop.
Contact:
T. Combs, OSP 504-2357 D. Orlando, DWM/NMSS 415-6427 ATTACHMENT D 9701230290 970116 PDR FOIA SIEFERT96-448 PDR
~
The Commissioners 2 ~
i Two positions that appeared to be of most concern to the Workshop attendees are summarized below.
- 1. Several States believe that they have successful ongoing SDMP-like programs and voiced reservations about the form and content of NRC initiatives in the Agreement State /SDMP area. One commentor expressed the view that where the States are responsible for the programs, they do not want NRC to " exercise management control."
While they do not mind providing infomation to the NRC about their efforts, they do not want NRC to track their actions into an NRC control system. This commentor also expressed the States' need for an overall "How Clean is Clean" standard, yet the States do not want NRC to impede their efforts to set more stringent standards. See transcript pages 107 and 108.
- 2. One State participant expressed concern about what is perceived by some as a fragmented approach by NRC on the overall issue of decommissioning and decontamination (D&D). The participant noted that NRC's D&D effort involves several offices (e.g., OGC, NMSS and RES), has multiple rules (e.g., Timeliness Rule and Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking) in various stages of development, and incorporates numerous position papers and guidance documents. The recomendation was made to initiate a study of all relevant documentation to ensure that the program achieves internal consistency and the relationship between NRC documents is clear.
Taking the process one step further, NRC could then strive toward fostering an overall, coordinated Federal position. See transcript pages 232-236.
MRilENT STATE INFORMATION As a result of the preworkshop survey and input received from Workshop participants, staff has developed a matrix summarizing the status of SDMP programs in the Agreement States. A copy of the matrix is provided as Attachment 2. The matrix summarizes information provided by the Agreement States in response to the questions forwarded to you by my March 18, 1994 memorandum. The findings reported as preliminary information in that memorandum have been updated to reflect new information. The most interesting finding is the apparent relative consistency in the criteria used by the Agreement States for release for unrestricted use of sites contaminated with Atomic Energy Act (AEA) material. In the absence of specific NRC regulations:
22 States said they use NRC criteria or NRC criteria supplemented by other criteria such as that recommended by the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) for releasing material contaminated with Atomic Energy Act regulated radioactive materials for unrestricted use. Two of these States (AZ, MS) indicated they are also either developing (AZ) or have developed (MS) specific regulations for soil contamination and; four States (AR, IL, ND, & TX) stated that they had promulgated their own regulations incorporating criteria for releasing either
4
- The Commissioners 3 material or soil contaminated with Atomic Energy Act regulated radioactive material for unrestricted use. These regulations appear to be based on State equivalent 10 CFR Part 20 effluent regulations (i.e., water limits converted to dry weight units (microcuries per milliliter to picocuries or microcuries per gram)). One State (Nevada) indicated it would use background, one (California than 1 x 10), cancer risk, and one (New York) would use <10 are
- w per year plus ALARA excluding background.
In addition, the staff also found that: '
4 five Agreement States indicated they have some type of SDMP program; 17 States reported having a potential of 95 SDMP-type sites; all 29 States conduct confirmatory surveys upon termination of a license; and a
12 States say they have conducted a review of their previously released sites.
Staff also made a less intensive effort to determine Agreement State criteria for unrestricted release of NORM contaminated sites. Again, the matrix displays the staff's findings. For the most part, it appears that the Agreement States are using radionuclide levels of 55 picocuries per gram in
- the first 15 centimeters of soil and $15 picoeuries per gram in any layer of soil more than 15 centimeters below the surface (5/15) which is found in both the EPA uranium mill tailings regulations at 40 CFR 192 and the draft Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors' criteria.
Based upon the Agreement States' responses to written and telephone surveys and interactions at the SDMP Workshop, staff does not believe that existing contaminated sites in Agreement States pose an immediate health and safety 4 threat to the public or that sites are being released with levels of contamination that would pose a significant threat to public health and safety. Although it appears that no immediate NRC action is appropriate, it does appear that more effort to assure a more systematic attempt to identify potentially contaminated sites on a national basis is needed for the long tenn. The major hurdles that remain are to determine "how clean is clean" and to establish a higher degree of confidence that contaminated sites in the Agreement States will be remediated in a timely manner. This is being addressed through the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking process and the deconsnissioning timeliness rule, along with other efforts to develop guidance sufficient to address cleanup criteria in the Agreement States.
Telephone conversations with the States indicated that they did not seem to have copies of all of the appropriate NRC guidance documentation. Staff
- believes that it has gone a long way in remedying this through its interactions with the States and through documentation distributed at and since the March 23 workshop.
~ .
~
a i
4 ,
f The Commissioners 1
Staff further believes that the Agreement States understand the importance of
- adequate and timely remediation of contaminated sites and facilities and that i their attendance at the workshops shows that they are interested in learning i more.
l TERMINATED LICENSE FILES FOR AGREEMENT STATES 4
One unexpected outgrowth of rtaff's data collection efforts and interactions i
with the Agreement States was learning that four of the Agreement States, California, Georgia, Rhode Island and Utah, have file retention policies that '
j
- provide for the destruction of teminated license files. We have written to
]
each of these States asking that they hold in abeyance any destruction of terminated license files until we have had an opportunity to discuss the i policy with them. Staff plans to impress upon them the need to retain these i files in their permanent record collections.
t
, TERMINATION SURVEY WORKSHOP i NMSS held a more detailed workshop that focused primarily on the technical i l aspects of final radiological surveys at decomissioned sites on June 1,1994, at the Crowne Plaza in Rockville. The Termination Survey Workshop was l i
! originally scheduled for May 19, 1994. However, a number of Agreement State representatives at the SDMP Workshop expressed an interest in attending and l noted a conflict with the Annual Meeting of the Conference of Radiation l control Program Directori (CRCPD). Accordingly, the date of the Termination Survey Workshop was changed to accommodate the States. Of the over 250 j
i attendees at that workshop, 32 were from 28 of the Agreement States, two were l
from potential Agreement States (Massachusetts and Pennsylvania) and two were from non-Agreement States (Indiana and New Jersey).
l The response to the workshop was positive and the attendees requested l
additional workshops. HMSS intends to host a workshop on site j characterization in the fall of 1994. 3 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Comission consideration to improve SDMP programs in the In Agreement States will be forthcoming in at least the following areas.
i formulating the recommendations, the staff will take into account the j potential expenditure of NRC resources.
i t Should Agreement States SDMP remediation efforts be tracked in the NRC I program?
i Should NRC require Agreement States to develop a program equivalent to
' NRC's SDMP7 4
Should or can NRC provide any financial assistance to the Agreement j States on SDMP7 i
The Commissioners 5 Should the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's review of terminated licenses be expanded to include the Agreement States and, if so, should NRC
' extend the contract to look at State files or should ORNL's computer model be made available to the States for their own use?
Should NRC's contractor for radiological assessment, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (0 RISE), be funded to conduct confinmatory 1
termination surveys for Agreement State contaminated sites that have been remediated? l Should NRC Agreement State program reviews be expanded to include a detailed, in-depth review of the State's program for regulating remediation of contaminated sites and facilities?
$ jgP es xecutive Director i for Operations .
Attachments:
- 1. Transcript of Workshop Matrix of State SDMP
~
2.
Programs j,
cc: SECY
- ACNW i
- l. i II t
e se v h g i
t c
t i i n .
a o Wte n
l t ie wsnd ee ee g , g R h m e g g y 2 .
A SR eR E o T y s N de de deh E t m ,
t M a
n M e ,
7 wf y o H si e g e ec C a msd n l A
, , , g t r e n e euI y y y g y
. yr na T R TF ae T s s i e A
h g m t, s
dr yd s
e r
u g
yei y
, g y, g y, ,
y y
/ e I l Cb pa 5 s t
e e , r ,
,9 , , ,
I i ht v c yt e , p , y ,
Mer SP r e gd ge c y4 g8 g5 c
, S 3 c g
g c
. n WI e dd e w2
,d e drke i
e*
v s
s e s e s
e ee ch e de y N N Y 5 t
RTRS s 1
f w
hr r
e s t e p
a r y
el y t
i r be e v a e mm a mlic N N v
e at l 1 e l Fr % % y e
v e
m Wfe f r
o w h e Sd i S F de y t
ked M wt n i t
o o i idt t
A eric= w e t % % N N s n u R de U o G RR i
l t
a d b, e O e bt a R t S
T 2 S
T v
i t
S P n g n C r
/ n a C e e S e t e A io A s Mhy E fe r wd PCs r s PC s t T aa e s
t PDM N Y I BV N Y I B e md b
S t ag w ,
P a l
u o 3 r
'se s t s o t M i e e o e D
S d t
r e
C)X Rei C mFRta l
w 0
e t
d+/
e 8
h r
R r s
a s s t
e a
dAl a r
e 0
2 t d t ie r
s t
mter ma o o
p m
r hw wi r
e a
E T
l ie S
sT a
eve 02 s
e ge t
r 8 p e s e 8 te it v/0 e1 t s ak epEiMeAe r
r PaE t
de t r e o iI0,*' 'C 1 !
A s e ei ir syre y o a t
t T
e e T (s deh A - t Fl e
imoC<I c p m
ARef mM d
gI ' y t
c e hk e r r e
S a q s e f e
de t
e hh t e r "e
ht d h .
- a d s e C e s ee e R s ye bi t s
g de M t a d n
a C
sn ay I
id n R e
i t
r t
ht a
edi e a
)
e h k
e M ip a r e n o s a
c ,t at se w d M c D d e
J" i" i
c n) s s F e c ke d t
R O dc m as A. s a t d h c e de N eit n 5 C5 s n e i s om e ac e c d '1 /
RI /
da e
- st ih h ne t
c N (e fes w Bl i A5 C5 te n w r i
r l ai o p t'
g n t s :
si f s
s e
t ag l e y s U
n a a8 6
eh2 gt a
e9 t
o rits em'#s er l oI r 5
6 7
c n
MSd e'h ae rl e e e t ed vn r
e s (a n
o p
s e
i r dI Rt or o t des o r m eae e
t mS nmR A c e Ft is A de et .e o E
e ir hrde st e e me e s t ea rh t e h cA't y t c a it e ad 1 A C Ce l
mG i e et s mC _
_)s r c ai c n e c ys s a,Fl t e eis st k
(
o Rmwic C Gg df dn i m roe vi e t
C e 0, l
R R e dgC A H Cp sl e a o EafrrE Bdl i s a.iem h t
s e
e rui ms' mprt ees N NR l g m e5 i ys u e
n e eh1 gve y q e R t /
l a
g ne er5 ht u e
- da e e r r s
o o t t ir r a r gtey n i t
s o e n t,e b t d a ed es r mfe ai r e r gps,t op 9 I d 6 da odf R
e mde c s a oF n n*
d5r i
t c et s cS e
1 er s
t ymS*
r, 5 a s er M ,,.
pn sp N
o y
s e
N o
% N1
/
5 i
t n
w el n pf t y
s 2 e p oh me r i w
d i
r det s e es e n c t dtaai ASS r e t
f f ee p a .
a fothh s m e = t t
w a m o
= g sdd eii n
, b a
s 6r
=
g CDDp d R) m g
l A A A c N1 2) R e
l l
STATE STHWP SITES / PROGRAMS Verenrerted Reteese Craterte Rrw "d **
AEA NORM Se5
%see Preerum SimfP Seas Madr4684t U9e PeWey Sees hw -- -
y Ceterede No I NIIC Cetterte l h erieerie EPA's Dependsen me yet g pg, gy 4 RegGedde1.86 + Urmamen M available " N' EPA's Uremium Criterie (5/15) does -
he Crees,4m na 40 for Re-226 er perform a risk g,, , y,,
CFR 192.32 (SIlf) RESRAD Ser ureshme mas essassment Flevede No 3 NgtC Cdearte No Creesete rese4y<ese Ye, case- Ne m ye evaisseion by<ese gy,yg yg ResGales 1.06 yyggg g RESRAt, c,,,y ,
coorgie m 3 NitC Cdesrie CRCFD Crieerie Nome for AEA No g g y, gy,y ,
5 RegGelde 1.06 (5115) meeeviel -
gg Com . Ye, t slee e Imreses warrant nummen Yes 31 M usis Rees E"'0' R*88 3EI' #8W Y". I'r N84 784 % Ye W . Yg y, g es appsspresse some SDMP serghee.32 IAC redsen . 5 per AEA sless NUREG SOS .
3e0 Appener A. pCWessofesE meenrief er w BTP means are simmer emesse mr m. MostM + e. RasRAD se Reg Calde 1.86 Arut 15 em of see esposes, rose Ces. Yee and 5 pCWyn et IM em RAM aureys e m aged ever 15 firmusshe es swess. ce shirk layws surfere shaR 32 IAC 330 smere sham 15 ce metomreed '
Appener A batsw the smeface barbground ensumptease. 45ts) imposom rees m es., erteoria ann appfy to '
e,.ee es,ess. .eesasan 5 pCWom of esa eenesham emuesd orshe seal Arut 15 below ee -
t surfhee med 5 yCy pe e m aged ever15cesshirk j toyers more eben '
15 cm beoew the I serfere (5/5) l 1
[
L
ili l)I e
v g n o wi i
t r
n .
e s s
I t ee de e t
e y ey w t t s mem o e a o AheR A R N s
p % Y l
p m .
de e _
s n
s *e f im=e e e e ea*
nf _
a a e u s
e e RYF Y Y Y Y Y Y
~
p
- e e ,t D s de r e
s e e o a o ye oS GCn F e o e myd dave re %. Y. %. Y. N. Y. M. ,
s Y.BRir t
sCee Y.
m N.
P Y.
m ter ere r 3
m o
p 5
m o
p 5
m o P I e Furs t a 5 o 9SF 3 C 3 C 3 C S C ENee C 3 C d
e s
ie e RwWih R
s e y a
Y a
% t p
% N o
y e
eny v a ic eml o o NrP i o N N N % % N r
o S F de t e
y 1
M t e
r ey M et r R A
si t o aOe t t
o t
o R 0'erW
- N YNis N N N N I
E' R M
(
R ' t D Y P ' g n A L
/
S
' P 8
r R M E f' ed aa o o a S
E s e O o T
T S
P"hM t N N Y R b Y C N F e )
M y e e en 5 1 e r 1
5 D c n
ml aemD5 1
ic tyA e 1
/
S eM < mP( f n i
c e nnR i
S 5
( C+
E l tR s
gO biCe emee A De R eA ernR re i ps i Ft NrR i T 5"i u rN s tud e wLmA r
e Cs e e
yt eeA A r seCe at t ee s s0 Rt s mal T
S
%fo Cd eeC re Seb1 ' a0
+ N Ce ACA t
s e
hr i a y5 e
- i h
i sS g
eh s A
F C es r t r - s g w 8 s1 e1 r. rp E )
s e u ni e bu r s e uel R e a2 u5tf r
e r vo da5 d e
ee a r o s e r *2r es ri nM1 /
t e R M r e Ui er C
D eR o R Mss
=
ei
6 odl mhCnd ef i p aee=m a
= e Fi Dem s1 5 m R U 'sC1 P) f t
Rty 3
d'
=
m=2 m
eeCm r mp2' 9 i g=5 mi i m ee y d N AB1 5 CSI a i e= 2 e a 0 Cr r1 Cas t e
e Pi1 RI rOiC - rm o ein s2 f< 8F, oe R rt n r o
t r
r EM5( C5( DNy 8 f aRwe>I 3 emte cue n e
u r
U n
r 5/
+ +
e 5) 6 6 6 sam iP
,.5 45 1
1 t e
e t
e8 r1 l
e0 r p 1 r y t e i e9 r1 A
E vEMef s
e ts de m a o l t a
s t
e t e ed te m
sdi =v e =
l e
r u
r 8
8' e d
A el uid CaA Cne Ca- e C'iu f i r n R Cemoet e e CA CgG C Ge gi C CgG s er as su t t eL t i at t
ie t
i Re s
f p sUCh NA Ns HR< M NR e
s t
s g
t ir e
mu e, e p s
gps o 3 O g g 3 2 r
gSw u p g y e
e y
e e g o M N e
m s o e e t h
m m y m a r a
g I
" K a
g t M a
M l!' 1
STATE SDMP STTES/ PROGRAMS -
t Retsim thsee SDMP No. g Fwassied D"ustricted Rdense Criteria Perform Dow Rdsene For Reserkeed Neve rnessey W w ym ABuer Immedet m
see Progrus SDMr shes AEA NORM Ss3 Me&Eng Use Peery Bessened % g %
Shas 7.,___- n-, og g,,g,g,,g N e NRC Crheda <5pCit ium + N egnedreens em Miss Rees - h No m 33p . W Yes Ye-NORM equietsme se Redom Bus ruee the It CFR cas . y ,
Part 20 If,0 Emies converted se ,
pCl/gue +
EFA Urumimus MIE Crieerie (Sil5)
% N e NItC Cdesda No er#s'da Badgend No Me No No glp . M, y,, g Com - Yea
. w,g, pg. e Badgrumed Bader**d L b-
- Yu Yu No SIP - N i
Yes Net yet i CamArus - Yes e
a,,, y., 9 NItC Criende Me edeeds Com @ cese W Ye-I h No gy . g y ,,
i deserumisseine ygg j Immyshire sise. Name enyerted ,
inthe Ces- Yes fwere g,, % pg, e NRC Cdisde <SSeduhr Bedevound h Nee yet h Ms y . M, y, y,g ,,,
ResGdde 1.36 % hhg erCamb-1 8888 deessutmeeles Com-Yes i
yg g 9 <gg g + < lt _. -.",; + <10 aremelyr Ye(DOL Yes - N Yes y.y, I AgARA % + ALARA y, g y, j AIARA % wouM esfer DEC & NUREG5tep tedgramme hedgend andmeme to NQ DOH er elec mm ,
t hochgreemd DON 4 RESRAD, N* NYC - ebe Com - Ye I PRESTO NYC &
~
DOL r
I L
% repulsesey eushadey ller redesreive smesedd in to Stees and Chy of Near Yedt is shared by e* i ^ et En - -
(Doff) and New Yea Chy (NYC). Umless seherwho meted, the rapsense are condatame between these ., C, M[-
!, ;).
t e s g .
k ,
dot Wleg I
i, le,;,,
n o
, N.
wei,a ,
s e o g .
Eiot eg m e Y N y
As R y
g d ,
e ,
o q,,
q ns a rmee g, u " e g d e 9 ;, Y Y Y RTF e 9 4
- E I h
.r
. y g.
o, Y
s c,
e K, el micf e n Y M" Y y s
mt its se yX
,5
,8
. F 1
a n, p a *
- er R d.
Y.
se s h t *gecw r r m r y ma ere y.c e8 r
a
- g g
- sU sN C o
mSp N C1 8 ew C' y,
ades
'o. .let
. -a e e
i y
, y" & N e
RrRS y
t eb y A
- e. ulac e /
ufo P e i g g N N
- r. dy S rd e ey 1 t
M .t c
. i r e g g s
e ,e N
A s Yis R = WU G RR O
R t g
P
/ e u r
S <e nd e e l
s E -oo e T
I rDM e
N N Y W S
P rl e )
5 e
M oi a t a E t
a r e d
aA., 5(
1
/ a mesecd" D m r r a h n mR P i
r S e # 'e.RMe t sm nch h e e
ne o n s e o T Da e kr E 8 Le " l ,Ou e0t r n s
.mi aat irah er y e r el t rA R F re haL i
C I
' S e
Dba" Miu .N A a= o0 s ef a o - t ptehi l cA1 a 8Ri Ct e rt CCr t
A t A
s :. e E + p st 1 r s m W ui u e (p e pamtos cr l e B+9 N T
S
<s feA e ef c 1 g -
d a r ift r
l
.n e E t e
p )
C le e gs a . +1 D5 -
eos r 8 -
e s vF of leC h a
" 9F1 /
a a M t l se pm C. ,Ase -
1
,C5 t r
l e
e R <m y b rg a5 c 3 el t up) .A R (a e kr RO 4er'ee >l s <5 Rmemy n 1 6de mt s R C. ri e dN i
f s e aw 5 c e ch s e e4 1
- h ei 3 c a3SIeE mm 4LTAPb 8ABC r
N e
i t Cd 2 e t f
t 8
1 r . d r
e f o . 3 - e g5 dh n n c eh e +
D l 4 l 6 )
R 6 ia6 . a ier a1 rt e5 i ei hthew5 t er19F1 9. 8 D5 1
a a e eH - 3 t r1 e e 1 i i i
yt e -
3Ao m v rsht d ct 1 r e
A r
e sRF ka Dno e 1
e a3 c s
aeE unmr o/ ol e(5 it e
e 1 t e wsec mb i
t t s mrl e t memhl rdl A.C$R (a r t e.
E i D -Nat d e ee e o ee5 e C A C r
h s m l
r Me u p eat e c s 1 s n c car Cir r p d e e e )s r a a C C yan C e s t cF rCrba fu e ecf C C A P. es t R . o t
r ga y N R A sh R ,,
u ge f, Amhah R so C Sc (e g ssi au a pv e n ru C n y5 ru e
sS eespol 1 s a ReLTe NRABC t
R N
s N
e e
l a
g
,dr n
- e. g o tem NP S oD 7 3 3
,e M e N W
,e D 3S Fw m %
d s
e n s l a
k s n a I e D ne e h
e d ht t o ht v o r r r r h R
% NCa N o O
- _. . _ _ . _ . _ . _ , _ . . . . - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . - . - _ . . . . _ _ ...._._._m m _ . _ _ _ .-m. .
STA'IE SDMP SITES / PROGRAMS No. of E*d'* Reesia Sesee SDMP Poeemeist Unmedtted Meteese Crisede Perforum Dow Re4 ease For Rese4ceed He,e rimmary W
nos ,,,g w
g y
Ass ,Immed , - i
, t asse Pruerem Sim4F Seas AEA, NORM Seit Modetian Uw g
poeiry Shen hw -- -
Seseh No e NRC Cdesde C-.Z, dreshag N Crieerie N g N, g Canumme MUREGe95N & nas gy,y y 5512 MUREGS049 i Com . Yes Temmassee No 9 NRC Cstesde <Wh name es Yes - Case- % N, ye t
ResGelds I.N + herberoamed. + NORM by<eme 35P . N Ya m 1981 RTP CRCPD Crisons Celeevie (Sils).1981 BTP RESRAD g ,y, .
opeism Tees-NRCC Ya le Temas Rage Temas Rags . M Temas Reses . N - mer No % N gr . Ya' n I o Part 23.Taas 21 for " Ra er Fans 21er # for NORM Yes No DOM 11 N 0 weemr Emiles "Ra t5115) and as . . _,, '__, !
eenverend es Part M teurfatal for AEA RESRAD j e@, s A-ann (ReCalde I.M unseedet er *Y" i for coreste RAM Emmits for U-eme) NORM !
as, syndmed hs Part 21 Utah m 0 NRC Celesde 1981 NRC BTP 1981 BTP. N N m ye and EPA's EPA's EP ygggg. Ym ggg ,
h m i Urusimum M Uramisse M Crisede (5/15) Cetende '
(5/15). Com .Ye NUREG-SSf3 Washingene % g.2 NRC & Cp earnsdy w e yes No Me 3lP . No Creesde (5IIS) densoping edeeds m Yes Yes,20.304 sees Cem . Ye i
I
g% 9 f h UNITED STATES i
~
- 3* j e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION waswiworow, o.c. a=== aaat n
) ' ***** May 19, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: The Chairman 1 . Comissioner Rogers i Comissioner de Planque Comissioner Jackson FROM: James M. Taylor.
Executive Dire for erations
- SU8 JECT: NRC ASSIST IN AGREEMENT STATE SITE DECO m ISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLANNING (SDMP)
My memoranda of March 18 and August 24. 1994, provided the Commission with a requested overview on the status .of site decomissioning management planning
! in the 29 Agreement States. This request grew out of the Commission's briefing by the staff on the status of the NRC SDMP program. During and after that briefing the Comission expressed interest in obtaining more information on the experiences of the Agreement States in identifying and remediating contaminated sites.
The August 24 memorandum further reported on the results of staff interactions with the Agreement States th:ough written and telephone information requests.
The Office of State Programs (OSP) also hosted a March 23, 1994 workshop designed to provide Agreement States with documentation and techniques necessary to develop and run their own SDMP program. A followup open workshop which focused entirely on site termination surveys was held by the Office of 4
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) on June 1,1994. NMSS also conducted a site characterization open workshop on November 28 and 29,1994.
These workshops were well attended with nearly all of the Agreement States represented at cach workshop.
The Agreement States have pointed out that a major hurdle that remains is to i determine "how clean is clean" through the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking (EPR) on radiological criteria for decomissioning. A second major item cited as needing resolution is to establish a higher degree of confidence that l contaminated sites in the Agreement States will be remediated in a timely .
l manner. NRC's EPR continues to progress toward a final rule that will establish cleanup standards and the Environmental Protection Agency's environmental standard for decomissioning is under development. NRC's final rule on Timeliness was issued on July 15, 1994. After equivalent rulemaking
Contact:
Richard L. Bangart, OSP 415-3340 l
ATTACHMENT E
)%fP-1 ! 3 0! Al-MA
1 ;
The Commissioners 2 ,
actions to the EPR and Timeliness rule in the Agreement States are complete, 1 all regulatory authorities for Atomic Energy Act materials will have the same ,
basis upon which to require additional remediation at contaminated sites.
t Before the development of a recommendation for possible further Agreement State action on the remediation of problem contaminated sites, staff i identified six questions which they believed needed to be addressed. The following questions were outlined in the August 24 memorandum: ,
- 1. Should NRC require Agreement States to develop a program :
equivalent to NRC's 50MP?
P
- 2. Should Agreement States SDMP remediation efforts be tracked in the NRC program?
- 3. Should NRC Agreement State program reviews be expanded to include :
a detailed, in-depth review of the State's program for regulating !
remediation of contaminated sites and facilities?
- 4. Should or can NRC provide any financial assistance to the Agreement States on SDMP7
- 5. Should the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's (ORNL) review of terminated licenses be expanded to include the Agreement States and, if so, should NRC extend the contract to look at State files -
or should ORNL's computer model be made available to the States for their own use?
- 6. Should NRC's contractor for radiological assessment, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (0 RISE), be funded to conduct confirmatory termination surveys for Agreement State contaminated sites that have been remediated?
The staff's evaluation of the issues associated with each question is attached.
Based on the information obtained from the Agreement States and the staff's evaluation of the six questions, staff concludes that dialogue with the Agreement States on problem contaminated site remediation should continue.
Further, Agreement States that have not done so will be encouraged to evaluate past license terminations in order to identify any sites or facilities in need of additional remediation to assure that acceptable levels of health and safety and protection of the environment are, and will be, provided. With the assumptions that (1) all known contaminated sites are controlled and public health and safety and environmental protection are assured, and (2) unidentified contaminated sites in need of additional remediation do not pose an unacceptable level of risk for the next few years, NRC will encourage the Agreement States to initiate efforts to identify sites needing further i remediation no later than when the Agreement State's equivalent EPR and l Timeliness rules are promulgated. Since Agreement States are currently .
required to promulgate necessary regulations within 3 years of the date of NRC l
The Commissioners 3 l
final rulemaking, the approach outlined here (1) allows time for NRC to l discuss this recommendation further with Agreement States and to modify it, as appropriate, based on Agreement State input, (2) allows time for Agreement States to plan for this activity, (3) eventually results in the identification of most or all Agreement State contaminated sites in need of additional remediation, and (4) results in assurance that most or all Agreement State contaminated sites are remediated to acceptable levels of risk based on
- national standards currently under development.
Attachment:
- As stated cc
- SECY OGC
l I i i
i
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN AUGUST 24, 1994 MEMORANDUM
!' ON SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLANNING (SDMP)
Should NRC require Agreement States to deveiop a program equivalent to NRC's SDNP7 No, NRC should not _reouire Agreement States to develop SDMP-equivalent programs. The NRC's SDMP was developed to identify and resolve issues associated with the timely cleanup of radiologically contaminated sites.
NRC's SDMP provides a comprehensive strategy for NRC and NRC Ifcensee activities dealing with the cleanup and closure of contaminated nuclear material facilities. The SDMP has been effective in ensuring resolution of some of the policy and regulatory issues affecting site decommissioning.
Based on the information provided by the States in response to the staff's inquiry, approximately 95 sites in 17 Agreement States are comparable to the 52 sites cur ently included in NRC's SDMP. It seems i l
reasonable to assume that the same type of obstacles to timely remediation will surface at the Agreement State sites. In that the NRC SDMP provides a comprehensive strategy for the identification, evaluation and remediation of contaminated nuclear material facilities, it would follow that the Agreement States having such sites would l benefit from NRC experience in regulating the timely cleanup of their l contaminated sites. Urging Agreement States to develop a similar approach, based on requirements established in their regulations, would help ensure that licenseet are regulated in a consistent manner, regardless of whether they are regulated by NRC or by an Agreement State. Program goals, definitions, timeliness requirements and cleanup criteria are common elements that NRC and Agreement State programs should share. The degree of compatibility as well as the identification !
of other common elements will be identified during an NRC/ Agreement i State dialogue on the development and implementation of the new compatibility policy.
However, the lack of SDMP-equivalent programs in Agreement States has i not led to unacceptable risks. It is likely, also, that Agreement i
States would strongly object to an NRC effort that would, in effect, require SDMP-equivalent programs.
Should Agreement States SDMP remediation efforts be tracked in the NRC program?
No, SDMP-type remediation efforts regulated by Agreement States should not be tracked in NRC's program beyond ensuring that the State is effectively regulating contaminated sites as part of its overall program. Incorporating the tracking of Agreement State efforts to remediate sites in the NRC SDMP program would have the administrative benefit of establishing an efficient, centralized data base for all contaminated sites that are difficult to remediate. While listing Agreement State-lead sites on the NRC's SDMP could prompt more timely remediation by some site owners because of the increased visibility associated with such a listing, there appears to be no significant
- .._.___ _ _ _ _ _ . _. _ . _ _ . _.~ ._.- . _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _
i
- health and safety benefit associated with such a listing. The Agreement States have indicated that contaminated sites in their States do not result in any unacceptable risks in their current condition.
Furthermore, such a listing would not be welcomed by Agreement States a since they would view such action as setting an overly invasive precedent. NRC does not formally track State projects in other program 4 areas. States have routinely expressed their objections to such NRC j " interference" in what they consider to be intrusions on their authority under Section 274(9) of the Atomic Energy Act. As one State participant l
' at the March 23, 1994 Agreement State SDMP Workshop declared, "...we, the States who are doing these projects, do not need; want or accept NRC management of our programs, SDMP or others."
NRC maintenance of such a list would require an additional small or f modest expenditure of NRC resources. Moreover, these resources would be i
borne by licensees in non- reement States and, in some or many cases, l could duplicate efforts mad in Agreement States.
l On balance, there does not appear to be sufficient justification to l
warrant tracking of Agreement State sites in NRC's SDMP. It is appropriate for NRC, in the context of Agreement 5. ate program reviews, to provide specific oversight and evaluation of the regulation of
- remediation efforts at contaminated sites in Agreement States.
)
N Should NRC Agreement State program reviews be expanded to include a detailed, l j in-depth review of the State's program for regulating remediation of i
' contaminated sites and facilities?
i Staff does not believe at this time that a detailed, in-depth review is i required. What seems appropriate is a review to gain confidence that
! Agreement State efforts assure that risks associated with contaminated i
sites in their States are acceptably low and that regulatory oversight continues; that program goals, objectives, and necessary actions to l achieve site remediation are established; and that site remediation regulatory efforts have been prioritized according to Agreement State
- program-wide safety significance. The staffing and funding of Agreement State programs should be sufficient to ensure that regulatory actions l necessary for oversight and remediation of contaminated sites can be i
completed. A more detailed, in-depth review would be warranted only if i Agreement State program adequacy concerns developed associated with ;
I regulation of contaminated site control and remediation. If Agreement l State programs tailored to the needs of the individual State's l l
! experience and safety priorities are developed and implemented, the adequacy of the State programs should be discernable by comparing the !
l
- regulatory actions and actual rate of removal of sites from the States' )
l equivalent of an !.DMP list to the goals developed by the States for i
their programs. If States routinely fail to meet their own goals for l j
reasons that are under their control, then it may be appropriate for NRC j to perform a more in-depth review of a State's program. j 1 .
i 2
i l
l l
i .,
i -
l
\
l Can or should NRC provide any financial assistance to the Agreement States on
] 30MP7 i
j No, NRC should not provide direct financial assistance to Agreement States for SDMP-type programs. Staff researched a similar question in responding 274b to SECV-94-088,
- Request for Seed Money for State Seeking Agreement."
j The legal and equity issues identified and discussed i
in that paper are apropos to the question of providing funds to the j Agreement States for initiating or improving SONP programs. SECY-N-088
- also indicated that the legislative intent associated with promulgation j of Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act indicated that Federal funding
- for the operation of Agreement State programs was not contemplated.
Nothing in the analysis contained in SECY-N-088 supports NRC financial i
4 -
assistance for Agreement State 50MP-equivalent regulatory actions.
Based on the legal and equity issues evaluated in SECY 94-088, the
- Commission decided not to provide seed money to a candidate Agreement State (Oklahoma). NRC technical assistance could be provided, however, if it were requested by an Agreement State and if NRC resources were sufficient to provide the technical assistance. Such assistance would likely be provided only on a cost reimbursable basis, beginning with FYg7.
l l
Should the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's (0RNL) review of terminated i
! licenses be expanded to include the Agreement States and, if so, should NRC j extend the contract to hok at State files or should ORNL's computer model be i
made available to the States for their own use?
i NRC could make the ORNL site screening methodology available to i Agreement States for their own use, but NRC's current budget and schedule for the ORNL project do not allow this technology transfer to ,
l the States. Based on the discussion cf assistance which can be provided i
! to Agreement States, it does appear to be possible, both legally and financially, for NRC to pay ORNL to provide copies of the computer program, some limited training, and some additional technical assistance, if necessary, to the Agreement States.
small. If this technology transfer is budgeted in aThese costs would be future fiscal year, l assurance would be established that all sites requiring additional i
remediation to satisfy current residual contamination limits are
! identified and assessed as to their threat to health, safety and the j
environment, in both Agreement and non-Agreement States. Because of the j
equity concerns discussed in SECY-94-088 and the potential costs to NRC, ORNL could only perform such work for Agreement States on a cost reimbursable basis. Whether all Agreement States would use ORNL's computer model for terminated license site screening is uncertain.
To transfer this technology in the near ters, funds would have to be
' obtained through reprogramming or su Unless directed by the Cosnission, however,pplemental the staff doesappropriation.
not plan to conduct the training and transfer the technology to the States because i
sufficient resources are not available. NRC's first priority is to j
complete review of records associated with formerly terminated licenses.
This will be completed by ORNL in 1997-1998.
i
= . . -
l .' .
l
! i l
i should NRC's contractor for radiological assessment Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (0 RISE), be funded to conduct confirmatory termination j surveys for Agreement State contaminated sites that have been remediated?
i No, NRC should not fund ORISE to conduct confirmatory surveys at Agreement State-licensed sites. In fact, NRC funding of ORISE to conduct confirmatory surveys of contaminated and remediated sites in non-Agreement States has been substantially reduced. It would be
' inappropriate for NRC to pay the costs, except (for equity reasons) in cases w)ere the site was remediated and released under an Atomic Energy Commission or NRC license. While NRC's contractor, ORISE, or another contractor hired by an Agreement State, could be utilized to conduct the survey, the State as regulator should bear the cost.
As current or future remediation actions are completed, confirmatory termination surveys will be required if Agreement States conduct their !
programs in a manner that is similar to NRC's 50MP and other large !
decommissioning projects. Those confirmatory surveys in Agreement States could be performed by Agreement State personnel themselves, by ORISE, or by another contractor hired by the Agreement State. In all cases, however, costs would be paid by the Agreement State, except when ,
the site was remediated and released originally under an Atomic Energy Commission or NRC license.
4
. i p
SDMP Federal liability and Estimated Decommission 1no Costs i SDMP Site Federal Liability
- Estimated Decommissioning Cost '
i Advanced Medical Systems: Cleveland OH Clean up funds do not appear to be $1.800.000 adequate Aluminum Company of America: Cleveland. No Remediation complete OH Anne Arundel County /Curtis Bay: Anne Defense Logistics Agency site $1.700.000 !
Baltimore. MD l Army. Aberdeen Proving Ground: Department of Army site $17,000.000 ,
Aberdeen. HD ;
Army Jefferson Proving Ground: Department of Army site Army requested restricted Madison. IN termination for use as wildlife refuge: EIS in preparation Babcock & Wilcox: Apollo. PA Congress provided $29 Million for Remediation complete remediation !
Babcock & Wilcox: Parks Township. PA No $22.000.000 to
$37.000.000 for on-site disposal:
$62.000.000 to !
$115.000.000 for off-site disposal BP Chemicals America: Lima. OH No $19.500.000 ,
i
- As of the Current Date. '
t
- Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and liability Act. i 1
Attachment F t
I Brooks & Perkins: Detroit. HI No Not available. needs - i characterization Brooks & Perkins: Livonia. HI No Not available, needs characterization
~
Cabot Corporation: Boyertown. PA No Not available Cabot Corporation: Reading. PA No Not available ;
Cabot Corporation: Revere. PA No Not available .
Chemetron Cor) oration. Bert Avenue: No $5.300.000 Newburgh Heig1ts. OH No '
Chemetron Cor) oration. Harvard Avenue: $2.120.000 Cuyahoga Heig1ts. OH Clevite Corporation: Cleveland. OH No Not available needs characterization '
Dow Chemical Company: Midland. MI and No $B.000.000 Bay City. MI '
l Elkem Metals. Inc.: MarieRa. OH No Remediation Complete Engelhard Corporation: Plainville. MA No Not available, needs !'
characterization Fansteel. Inc.: Muskogee. OK No $3.860.000 !
Hartley and Hartley Landfill: Bay No Not available, needs County. MI characterization .
Heritage Minerals: Lakehurst. NJ No $400.000 j Horizons. Inc.: Cleveland. OH DOE accepted responsibility to Not available, needs !
remediate basad on old AEC contract characterization I provisions t
2 :
i
} .
Kaiser Aluminium: Tulsa. OK No Not available, needs characterization Kerr-McGee: Cimarron. OK No Not available Kerr-McGee: Cushing. OK No $3.200.000 Lake City Army Ammunition Plant: Department of Army site $4.700.000 Independence. M0 Magnesium Elektron: Flemington. NJ No To be removed from SDMP list. characterization shows no licensable material Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.. No Not available Pine County MN Molycorp: Washington, PA No $8.000.000 for on-site disposal Molycorp: York. PA No $3.900.000 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District: N Not available Cleveland OH characterization just completed Nuclear Metals. Inc.. Concord. MA Department of Army may provide Proprietary information partial funding Permagrain Products: Media. PA No $5.000.000 Pesses Company: Pulaski PA CERCLA site $6.000.000 to $10.000.000 RMI Titanium Company: Ashtabula. OH DOE providing remediation funding $143.700.000 under contract provisions RTI. Inc.; Rockaway NJ No Not available. needs characterization 3
. r a
Safety Light Corporation: Bloomsburg. Clean up funds do not appear to be More than $20,000.000.
PA adequate needs characterization Schott Glass Technologies: Duryea. PA No
$500.000 to $88.000.000 depending on on-site or off-site disposal Sequoyah Fuels Corporation: Gore. OK Clean up funds do not appear to be $86.000.000 adequate Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation: Licensee petitioned for Chapter 11 $3.800.000 for on-site Cambridge. OH bankruptcy. possible CERCLA site disposal:
$293.000.000 for off-site disposal Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation: Licensee petitioned for Chapter 11 $2.500.000 for on-site Newfield. NJ bankruptcy. possible CERCLA site disposal Texas Instruments. Inc.. Attleboro. MA No Not available, remediation almost complete UNC Recovery Systems: Wood River No Remediation complete Junction. RI United Technologies - Pratt & Whitney: No Remediation complete i Middletown. CT Watertown Arsenal / Mall: Watertown. MA Department of Army site $80.000.000: remediation almost complete Watertown GSA: Watertown. MA General Services Administration Not available; needs site additional characterization i Westinghouse Electric Corporation: No Not available; Waltz Mill. PA characterization just completed 4
t ..
West Lake Landfill: Bridgeton. M0 CERCLA site Not available: EPA performing Remedial Investigation / -
Feasibility Study Whittaker Corporation: Greenville. PA No Not available; needs characterization Wyman-Gordon Company: North Grafton. HA No Not available; will provide in remediation plan 5
. _. ._ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _