ML20141D437
| ML20141D437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1997 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141D417 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-087-C, SECY-97-87-C, NUDOCS 9706270222 | |
| Download: ML20141D437 (2) | |
Text
....
\\
s NOTATION VOTE l
RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary i
FROM:
COMMISSIONER DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-087 - OKLAHOMA AGREEMENT STATE NEGOTIATIONS: STATE REQUESTS THAT MAJOR FACILITIES UNDERGOING SITE DECOMMISSIONING i
NOT BE RELINQUISHED TO, STATE wi/(G m>>anl t
Approved Disapproveda Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion j
COMMENTS:
[k[
. k., ( +
b
.[j
,jIGNATURE Release Vote
/ K/
'J) lau 20, / '7 7 )
l DATE
,_a Withhold Vote
/
/
Entered on " AS
Yes y
No i
9706270222 970520 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
}
Commissioner Dicus' comments on SECY-97-087:
Staff aresently has two letter.s from the State of California which may bear u3on t1e request from Oklahoma (attachments).
These letters concern sites tlat were formerly licensed by the AEC and AEC terminated the licenses. prior to the State's 274.b agreement with the Commission.
These sites were subsequently found to contain radioactive contamination levels exceeding 1
guidelines currently in use for unrestricted use.
The State takes the position that responsibility for directing cleanup of these sites lies with the Commission and not with the State.
Staff has not responded to the California letters pending its submission of a paper that addresses the California matter as a policy issue and a Commission decision on what the policy should be.
I understand that a final decision on the Oklahoma request is not presently on the State's critical path to a 274.b agreement and that the paper on the policy issue raised by California is expected to be sent to the Commission in the near future.
While taking no position on the California matter. I conclude that it would be premature for the Commission to make a decision on the Oklahoma recuest until it addresses the policy issue raised by California.
Delaying the cecision will assure consistency in both the Oklahoma and California cases.
Further, a Commission decision on the policy issue raised by California should add to the basis for a final decision on Oklahoma's request.
Therefore. I suggest deferring issuance of an SRM on the Oklahoma request until the policy issue raised by California has been addressed by the Commission.
l
-