ML20138D025

Partially Deleted Policy Issue Seeking Commission Approval of Timely Remediation of Sites Listed in Site Decommissioning Mgt Plan

ML20138D025
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/24/1991
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137B180	List: IA-96-518, Informs Commission of Staff Analysis of Issues Associated W/ Ensuring Timely Remediation of Sites Listed in Site Decommissioning Mgt Plan.Partially Deleted ML20137B174 ML20138D025 ML20138D030
References
FOIA-96-518 SECY-91-342, SECY-91-342-R, NUDOCS 9111060136
Download: ML20138D025 (12)

Text

,: TE: ATTORNEY CLIE NF E LIMIT 0NRCUNLESSTp ES OTHERul5E

. ig510N POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)

SEcy-91-342 October 24, 1991 F o_r:

The Commissioners From: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

ACTION PLAN TO ENSURE TlHELY REMEDIATION OF SITES LISTED IN THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN

Purpose:

To seek Commission approval of an aggressive strategy to compel timelf remediation of sites listed in the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (50MP).

Summary: The 50MP M s been in place for 18 months. Although the SDMP management system should be effective and important in ensuring that site-specific problems and issues are identified and addrtssed, progress on actual site ,

remediation continues to be slow. The most important obstacles are: 1) fhe lack of regulations to compel timely remediation; and 2) the lack of enforceable standards for acceptable decontamination levels. Staff has initiated rulemakings on these issues, but several years probably will be required to complete them, unless they are made an urgent priority and, in the case of cleanup standards, the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) consensus process is bypassed.

This timeframe is not acceptable for decommissioning current problem sites. Therefore, the staff has further evaluated the approach to decommissioning problem sites and proposes a new strategy for compelling timely cleanup.

Based on the staff's reading of the Sheffield and West Valley proceedings, and the Commission's actioni, oI I

Contact:

John H. Austin, NM55 492-0560

.}'

Lawrence J. Chandler, OGC 492-1580 NOTE: ATIORI CLIENT INF0 AT ION \

1M15510N DET INE5 OTHERWISE LIF TO NRC UNLESS THE h/ d6 0/3fg,M"#W / 2 p p , re:Ord wn delcled the freedom of inlormatiSR h

' 'Act, exemptiojls 4 _

E01A-Yb'S/f ,.

~ - - .- - . . --. - - -- -. - - _ - . - _ .. - -.

y LIM 11ED RCbNL 1E SI ES OTHERWISE i ~

The Commissioners  !

enforcing the deadlines for environmentally qualifying

i. electrical-equipment important to safety, the staff believes l that there is a sufficient basis for issuing immediately j effective orders to licensees on.the SDMP, to establish

• enforceable deadlines for site remediation.

!i The staff recommends that the Commission direct the staff '

to: 1) prepare a Commission policy statement that would t endorse the proposed strategy; and 2) after issuance of the l policy statement, issue immediately effective orders, based on the public health, safety, and interest, to sites in the SDMP, to establish deadlines for the major milestones of i

site remediation.

Background:

Each year the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must evaluate requests, mainly from material licensees, to (l ' discontinue licensed operations. The majority of those j

requests are relatively straightforward and are acted on in a timely manner such that the sites are decontaminated, if necessary, and released for unrestricted use. However, some sites requiring remediation involve unique and difficult l

decommissioning issues, such as disposal of large quantities of contaminated soils; groundwater contamination; compelling timely remediation after' profitable activities have ceased;

/- decommissioning contaminated sites for which a. license no i longer exists or never did' exist; and licensees who are i- bankrupt or in serious financial condition'. Although these

problem sites are contaminated with radioactive materials i that are above levels that the staff believes acceptable for

' authorizing unrestricted use of the site, they do not pose an immediate health hazard (e.g., they do not approach 10 j CFR Part'20 limits). Therefore, the health and safety basis for requiring immediate site remediation pending consideration of the licensee's'(or other possessor or owner

of the site) objections in a hearing must be based on longer 4

term safety considerations. Further,'there are few i

financial incentives.for the licensees or former licensees-to remediate these sites, absent regulatory compulsion.

r-I Staf f resources, in the past, have been applied to other

!~ matters having a more imminent health and safety concern.

} The overall effect of this prioritization and lack of an

[ enforceable regulatory framework that includes cleanup s

standards and deadlines has been that'these contaminated sites and resolution of decommissioning issues languished,

resulting in the accumulation of more than 40 sites requiring additional, concerted regulatory attention, and about 15 regulatory issues requiring resolution; Another i

i CLIENT INFOR N E: ATT 0 NRC UN 1HE COMMIS4 ERMINEl.STHERWISE

! 1IM11 4

--,,, c -y e-- , ,

l'N R WISE LIMITED 10 1 4  :- The Commissione , ,

4 L effect has been public and Congressional interest in the 1 cleanup of these sites has developed and, increasingly, is being expressed to the Commission.

The past staff approach of addressing contaminated sites on 1

l. an ad-hoc low priority basis ended after a hearing chaired -l J In part as a j~ by Congressman Synar, on August 3, 1989. 'l j

result of that hearing, the Office of Nuclear Materfat Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) prepared a comprehensive plan-for remediating the known problem sites and for resolving the decommissioning generic' issues. The Site

Decontamination Management Program (SECY-90-121, dated March 29, 1990) was the product of that effort. SECY-91-096 is the most recent full update to that paper.

i Concurrent with the instant paper is another Commission paper that updates staff activities associated with 50MP.

, The latter paper notes that progress on decommissioning

!: contaminated sites under the 50MP has been steady, but slow, I and has suffered from a number of obstacles.

1 Although the 50MP management system should be effective and important in ensuring that site-specific problems and issues are identified and addressed, progress on actual site remediation continues to be slow. The most important obstacles are: 1) the lack of regulations to compel timely remediation; and 2) the lack of enforceable standards for acceptable decontamination levels.

Existing decommissioning regulations require that sites be decontaminated to;a level that permits returning the site to unrestricted'use. However, there isTherefore, no time limit in the the staff regulations for accomplishing this. l currently has no firm basis in regulation' to compel timely cleanup of the SDMP sites. The absence of an enforceable timeliness criterion has been one of the more frustrating aspects of implementing the 50MP. Staff may request licensees to submit reasonable schedules for remediation,

_j but what is reasonable to licensees is not always reasonable '

to the staff or to segments of the public and Congress.

Excuse after excuse for not making timely progress on site remediation is offered by a number of licensees and former licensees, any one of_which may sound reasonable.

The absence of firm regulations on deadlines for cleanup, coupled with little financial incentive for licensees to decontaminate their sites, and no regulation containing  ;

generally applicable and definitive decontamination criteria, invite delays in site remediation. Delaying tactics seriously raise the question as to whether. licensee L l' {Nii.4TtfEN1'SF

.. - - - - . - . . . . .. ~ -.. - -. . ..- - - .. - . - ~ - - . - - ~ - .

- .. .: AllOHNI ATENI INIOkMAl t LIMITE NRCUNLESpt1ECOMMISSION IN E l! .

d'" The Cummissioner; r 1

4- j 4

delays in fulfilling their obligations are more profitable .

i than fulfilling the obligation itself. In fairness to some  !

Itcensees, the lack of firm decommissioning criteria fosters

{

reluctance to engage in site remediation work out of concern i that the site may have to undergo further remediation if I

more stringent cleanup criteria are adopted later. l f

Staff has initiated rulemakings on timeliness in l

i decommissioning (am<nding 10 CFR 30.36) and on residual j-contamination criteria. However, final rules probably will l l

j require several yvars to complete, and the timeliness i

rulemaking will be applicable to existing and future licensees, and therefore may not be applicable to some of the SDMP sites (e.g., those without a current license).

Residual contamination criteria, even if approved in terms

'of acceptable dose levels as opposed to contamination l limits, would be extremely ureful. Expedited rulemaking

here would require bypassing the BRC consensus process, i

which would be inconsi. stent with the Commission's policy. j As a result, the staff has further evaluated the approach to decommissioning problem sites. Following are the results of

?

i the evaluation and the staff's proposed strategy for compelling timely remediation of sites listed in the SDMP.

i l Discussion: Orderly and effective site remediation is a sequential I process. First, the extent and nature of radiological Second, once a site i

' contamination must be characterized.

has been adequately characterized, a site remediation plan

needs to be developed. Assuming the remediation plan is l adequate, the third and fourth steps of'actually cleaning up i the site and conducting final confirmatory surveys are taken. There are two key issues in this progression: what I

constitutes " adequate" remediation and characterization plans and surveys and what are the goals for cleanup.

Inadequate site characterization is one major root cause of l

, delays in site remediation. Neither the regulations nor  ;

regulatory guides define what is an adequate site i characterization plan. Although a regulatory guide is under i development for closecut surveys, some guidance on site i characterization is needed now if the staff is to enforce a timely progression on site remediation. Oak Ridge Associated Universities (0RAU) has developed protocols for its survey activities. They are: " Survey Procedures Manual for the ORAU Environmental Survey and Site Assessment

!- Program," March 1990; " Laboratory Procedures Manual' for the j Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program," Rev. 5, l' February 1990; and " Quality Assurance Manual for the Oak l Ridge Associated Universities Environmental. Survey and Site ATTO CLIENT INF ON DETERMINES RWISI llM!T 0 NRC UNL THE COMM

E: Alto CLIENI INF 10N

, LIMSTE NRC UNL THE COMMiS DETERMISEPCTiiERWISE

, i The Commissioners  !

i Assessment Program." Rev. 3. February 1990. Staff could  !

adopt these ORAU documents as the criteria for assessing the l adequacy of the elements in a site characterization' plan. f With regard to cleanup goals, in 1984, the staff ordered Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, the licensee for the West Chicago Rare. Earths Facility, to show cause why it should i not prepare and submit for staff review a remedial action '

plan for the cleanup'of radiologically contaminated areas in and along Kress Creek and the West Branch of the Du Page River and, after staff approval-of the plan, perform the  !

cleanup. The order was not immediately effective and.

Kerr-McGee's request for a hearing resulted in the matter i

going to hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing _

Board,.in 1986. The Liccning Board determined that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's " radioactivity-in- I soils" standards (40 CFR 192.41), which the staff imposed on [

the licensee in determining the degree'of cleanup that shouldbeperformed,wereno}appropriateforapplicationto f this contamination situation . The Board concluded, instead, that 10 CFR 20.105(a) was an appropriata standard j (0.5 rem per year) and further. looked to then proposed 10 CFR 20.303(a) (establishing a reference level of 0.1 ren per i yearattributabletoaparticularlicensedactivjty)in  !

I I determining whether remedial action was required . On >

February 10, 1988, the Appeal Board issued a decision j (ALAB-885). affirming the Licensing Board's decision which -'

dismissed the Show Cause Order, but in-so doing, the Appea?

j Board did not regch the question whether Part 20 served as a  :

cleanup standard . The Commission itself took no review of ALAB-885. As things now stand, it is unclear whether  !

Part'20 applies as a cleanup standard. If Part 20 dose standards were legally controlling cleanup standards, there [

I Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (Kress Creek Decontamination), L6P-86-18, 23 NRC 799. 806-10 (1986). The Licensing Board made this determination because 3 40 CFR 192.41 is based on inhalation of Rn-220 (thoron) and Rn-222 (radon), and the hazard in Kress Creek did not involve inhalation but exposure to gamma radiation.

2 Kress Creek, 23 NRC at 810-13.

t i

3 Kerr McGee Corp. (Kress Creek Decontamination), ALA8-885, 27 mc 59 (1988).

)

]

1  !

NT INFO ON i

ATTORNEY ETERMINES ERWISE l LIMll D NRC UNLESS OMM1551 k

L t t

1 .- _. .. . - _ _ _ _ ~ _ . - __________________________________________________________________________________I

F tIMlltu 10 NHL. UNLL w IHi ' 0MMi n iuN tit i t nmo.t i u nu m ,,

• ' J I, The Commissioner <.  ; .

would be little need for an 50MP because the projected doses associated with many of the SDMP sites are less than Part 20 l

+

timits, for typical exposure scenarios.

I j

Current and past staff practice is to use one or more of the following as remediation criteria: 1) Options 1 and 2 of l "DisposalorOnsiteStorageofThoriumorUranyimWar,tes

fromPastOperations"(46FR52061datedOctojef 23, 1981, ,

l commonly called the Branch Technical Position d 1981);

j -

I

2) " Guidelines for Decontamination of FacilitTFand Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or l Termination of Licenses for 8yproduct, Source, or Special i

Nuclear Material " Division of Industrial and Medical l Nuclear Safety August 1987; 3) Regulatory Guide 1.86,

! " Termination of Operating .icenses for Nuclear Reactors,"

l for structures and equipment; 4) an exposure rate of 5 t

I microroentgen per hour above background at I meter; or 5) a total dose from either most or all oathways of a fe.,

l milltrem per year. Statf encourages licensees to achieve i

I residual contamination levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).

I With regard to remediation plans, the staff guidance is only in thegform of the cleanup objectives identified above.

Those performance objectives translate into two approaches for site remediation: segregation of unacceptably high concentrations of contaminated material for burial at a low-level waste (LLW) disposal f acility, or segregation of contaminated material for burial onsite, under 10 CF,R 20.302. As costs for LLW disposal continue to climb, licensees likely will tend to request 10 CFR 20.30?

disposals.

For the aforementioned reasons, even with the -increased

~

staff and management attention afforded through the 50MP, progress on site ren.ediation has been slow .

Based on'about 18 montte of esperience with the 50MP, the staff proposes to take a more aggressive approach to compelling timely remediatinn and to managing the prograrn.

Ir enhar.r.e '.hc propnsed strategy, the staft is request irig N* A110Rf;Ii NT INFORMA ,

t0Mi'! % 10 LRMlNE5 .W151 t!"'!!I i 4RL UNLI5' .

N 11: All0RNEY C lidf 0RMAl l0N t.lMITED NRC UNLESS T OMMISSION DE WISE I )

[ - The Commissioners  !

j Commission approval for the staff to prepare a policy J

statement incorporating the following strategy. l l N ,

i l

l l

\

i l

! 'a t

1. Nurlear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), CL1-79-6, 9 NRC 673 (1979).

NOT ITORNE) CLI INFORMAT) i p 'I p 1 - ,

on: [ u, I a .. -

!%!ON 1 MI NI (. 01H

- - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~

-~ "

- t: A l i v ntit t u ti . , tu . n LIM 11E C UNLE MMISS10 NAE Me.n.NES-of)fERw15E j

The Commissioners 8-l.

I Y

l i

l i

i h

l ...,...y._._.. ,,,. j i

f f

l

~

H 7

N0if. T ORNE) CL hf 0Rf%i!0

} 1M15510ri D E5 01 3_t F" ' l ; 10 NL .. u f 5(. rr

}

1 1_ -

I LIMI 0 NRC 5 01HERW15l The Commissioners .

I y

U I

i l

1 I

?

u M M EI M M I N

• ~ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _

g-- . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - . - . - .. - _ _._ _ _ ___

I

ATTOR CLIENT INFOR M6

!- LIMIT [ NRC UNLE HE COMMIS$i RMIMES WISE l

!. f The Commissioners l

M i

/

SDMP experience to dete moves the staff to propose the l following reasonable deadlines to be incorporated into the l licenses:

l

1. As soon as practical, but no later than 12 months from l the date of the order, the licensee shall submit to NRC an adequate site characterization report. (The previously mentioned ORAU models could be used for judging the adequacy of site characterization.)

' 2 Ashoonaspractical,butnolaterthan6monthsafter NRC approval of the the site characterization report, the licensee shall submit to NRC an adequate 59tc l remediation plan, including schedules for completing i

I site remediation work.

4

3. As soon as practical, but no later than 18 months after i NRC approval cf the site remediation plan, the licensee

~

l i

shall complete all remediation work and confirmatory surveys, such that sites and/or facilities can be l '

released for unrestricted use.

The staff believes the order establishing these deadlines.

or alternative deadlines tailored to the particular

! circumstances in an intfividual case, should be immedia'tely l effective, based on the public health. safety, and interest.

The staff would initially select five or six sites to issue such orders, so as to learn what resuurces may be needed to implement this approach.

lNr0RilAllCN f .

ND s., A T 10g..; o .....

, .. .. n . m..w. ; ..

1 1

1

tlM U CNINI 1 RWISL i The Commissioners  :

i On enforcement of such license conditions, the staf f proposes civil penalties normally of not less than 51000 per day nor normally more than $5000 per day.of-failure to meet j' any particular established deadline. These levels are

- l suggested under the theory that violation of the orders or l l Itcense conditions should be more costly than compliance, j

j. The. staf f would extend deadlines only f or reasons beyond the l' l

control of the licensee. In addition, the staff would i suggest that the policy statement put licensees on notice i

that, if deadlines are missed, the staff would initiate discussions with EPA regarding the possibility of placing

!. the site on the National Priorities List (Superfund).

3' The FY 1992-1996 Five Year Plan (FYP) allocated the required i' resources to implement the SDMP. The quickened pace =of site  !

remediation that would occur under this strategy would free '

resources now being expended on exhortations of licensees and responses to inquiries,. allowing them to be applied to

~

review of site characterizations and remediations.- However, issuance of immediately effective orders establishing deadlines for' site remediation and the possible issuance of-proposed civil penalties.for.failing to meet a deadline, could prompt requests for. hearings which have not been anticipated in the FYP. If such hearings are requested and granted, 2 full-time-equivalent (FTE) staf f per year per hearing will likely be required. Although there is no reliable way to judge now many hearings may be requested, staff would anticipate two such hearing requests from the 5 to 6 licensees that would initially receive the orders.

This would require a reprogramming of 4 FTE'in each year during FY 1992-1996.

To improve management and accountability for the SDMP program, I have appointed a member of the Senior Executive Service as the'overall program manager for the SDMP. That individual is Chief of the Decommissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch (LLDR) within LLWM, John H.. Austin. I expect him to aggressively manage the program to ensure that:

. timely progress is achieved, priorities are appropriately established, and sufficient resources are devoted to the SDMP. . He will promptly inform senior management of any unnecessary delays or obstacles in achieving SDMP. goals, and will either take action within his responsibilities.to correct the matter or promptly recommend corrective actions.

I

. - . - . ~ - , . - . - - .. . - - , _ . __ . _ _ , _ . _ __

! L.- tlMi 0hCUN L C0d! kDL1LRMi[01HLRWl5l I

The Commissioners ,

l l 1 1

4 y Recommendation: The staff recommends that the Commission direct the staff to .

prepare a Commission policy statement to: j direct the staff to issue immediately effective orders, 1

1, i based on the public health, safety, and interest to

• establish deadlines for the major milestones of site i remediation; and

2. establish expectations for preparation of site i characterization plans and site remediation plans, i and ultimate decommissioning of the site.

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper 4

Coordination:

and has no legal objection.

i

/

bW

~

4es M. T or xecutive trector for Operations Comi s sione rs ' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Thursday, November 7, 1991.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted

.to the Commissioners NLT Thursday, October 31, 1991, with ar.

information copy to the Office of the Secrutary. If the paper

.is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be' apprised of when comments may be expected. t DISTRIBUTIO!!:

Commissioners OGC-OCAA 01G EDO SECY 4

N . AT10RNE ENT INFORM E C0f141SSI ERMINES 0 ISC L !M111 D 4RC UNLE

, ~ . - - .