ML20137J163
| ML20137J163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/18/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J085 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-058, COMSECY-96-58, DSI-9, FACA, SECY-96-058-C, SECY-96-58-C, NUDOCS 9704030234 | |
| Download: ML20137J163 (2) | |
Text
'*'*#
'/
UNITED STATES "1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0N FM/ED TO THE PDR
[
g E
W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 eJ
,l h
tIll'l4
/k 1 rib!s OFFICE OF THE febIuaIy 10, 1997 COMMISSIONE R I
I l
I MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus l
l Commissioner Diaz FROM:
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
h.,
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-058 - DSI 9 - DECOMMISSIONING NON-REACTOR
(
FACILITIES Having reviewed stakeholder comments on this paper. I have concluded that changes are necessary in the Commission's Preliminary Views.
l In dealing with this paper it is easier to start with options which I do not I
sup3 ort.
I do not support Options 4, 5. or 9.
I agree with the many
(
stateholder comments to the effect that the Superfund approach would not be effective.
For that reason I have grave concerns about the Preliminary Views on Option 6.
I believe that referral of difficult cases to EPA's Superfund Program should be a last resort in those few circumstances where the site would qualify for listing on the National Priorities List and EPA agrees that its different remedies (for instance to obtain funding from unlicensed parties I
who may have contributed to the contamination) provide a greater chance of I
success in achieving remediation goals.
Otherwise, such transfers are likely i
to result in indefinite postponement of decommissioning.
I have serious concerns about the pilot program to im31ement parts of Option 2.
A better approach might be that suggested 3y Commissioner Diaz, gearing dcommissioning plan requiremats and reviews to the complexity and risk associated with a site.
There were numerous stakeholder concerns raised I
about the elimination of decommissioning plan reviews, the thrust of which was I
that this is likely to be an attractive option in extremely limited' circumstances. Assuming the stakeholder comments are correct in their prediction. I am concerned that the up-front resources ad time needed to develop and implement a pilot program may not be commensurate with the limited I
number of sites where this approach can be successfully applied, and it may divert resources from current cases where progress can be made in the interim.
Therefore, I do not agree that the Option 2 approach would result in a net l
resource savings to NRC as suggested in the DSI. The lack of interest in l
Option 2 was also reflected in only one commenter expressing support for workshops and seminars prior to initiating the proposed pilot program.
9704030234 970401 PDR NRCSA I 9
PDR l
f i
- l Let me now turn to options I support.
I support the Preliminary Views with regard to Options 7 and 8.
These appear to me to be useful augmentations of the current program.
I also support 0] tion 3 to the degree that it can be achieved in the final rule to establisi radiological criteria for license termination which will soon be presented to the Commission.
In my vote on SECY-96-082. I expressed my preliminary views on the issues in that rulemaking, including raising the proposed 15 mrem / year dose basis for releasing sites for unrestricted use and the greater utilization of institutional controls along the lines of current EPA practices.
This leaves 0] tion 1 (Continue Existing Program) and the option proposed by Commissioner Diaz (Evaluate Any New and Different Approaches As They Are Presented).
Clearly the existing program is the default option.
It has many downsides.
But aside from Options 7 and 8 and Option 3 to the extent possible in the final rule on radiological criteria, the alternatives proposed are not very attractive.
Thus I would also favor a combination of Option 1 and Commissioner Diaz's option, naniely to continue the existing program and evaluate any new and different approaches as they are presented, augmented by Options 3. 7 and 8.
Finally. I would note that DSI-21 points out that many NRC costs for site decommissioning management plan activities are not recoverable under Part 170 fees.
It is important, as a matter of fairness and equity to NRC licensees, that the NRC attempt to move thes! costs outside the fee base to a direct appropriation.
cc:
i l