ML20207M743
| ML20207M743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/25/1999 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207M714 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-273-C, NUDOCS 9903190173 | |
| Download: ML20207M743 (2) | |
Text
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-273 - POTENTIAL FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR AGREEMENT STATES FOR CLOSURE OF FORMERLY TERMINATED NRC LICENSES Approved X Disapproved Abstain Not Participating
- COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
Au be e-MNATURYV 25 1999 cona a.u DATE/
J i
Entered on "AS" Yes X
No 99J3190g j g g15 CORRESPONDENCE PDR k
___m j
i Commissioner Dicus' Comments on SECY-98-273
\\
I recommend that we pursue a dual path approach involving an expanded Option 1 and a modified Option 2. I believe that Option 1 should be expanded to include funding for j
the file reviews and site remediation, if necessary, of sites located in non-Agreement l
I States. Providing funds to address the cleanup of non-Agreement State sites, as well Agreement States sites, is a matter of faimess and equity. Staff should revise its cost estimates to include the additional funding of the'non-Agreement State sites.
In addition ' o revising the cost estimates to include non-Agreement State sites, I t
~
strongly suggest that the staff be directed to reevaluate the remediati6n cost estimates l r -
for the Agreement State sites in view of the much higher known costs for cleaning up SDMP sites. I am concemed that the cost estimates stated in the paper are 4 ',
significantly underestimated. The staff should provide the Commission with its revised g
- cost estimates and a basis for the estimates before requesting a separate appropriation from the General Fund.
in a parallel effort to Option 1, I recommend that we address the jurisdictional issue raised in Option 2. It is my firm belief that we should resolve the NRC/ Agreement State
. j
. dispute over who should have regulatory responsibility for these sites by ensuring that Agreement States can retum jurisdiction to the NRC, if so desired. However, I am not
- convinced that an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) is required or is even the l
preferred approach.Therefore, I believe that the staff should evaluate the different g.
possible approaches that would allow Agreement States to retum jurisdiction of these sites to the NRC and should forward its findings to the Commission in a Commission
- paper that contains options and a staff recommendation. The staff's evaluation should cor: sider whether these sites constitute a class or category of sites that could be
~ included or excluded from an Agreement without amending the AEA.
i w
vc-g-rw- "r
~ma, w
y s
-*-y n-9a- - '> =\\-
s s~