ML20216B443
| ML20216B443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/22/1998 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-98-011, SECY-98-011-01, SECY-98-011-R, SECY-98-11, SECY-98-11-1, SECY-98-11-R, NUDOCS 9803130079 | |
| Download: ML20216B443 (11) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- oe............aeooeeeees RELEASED TO THE PDR .
- s lO)f $ h2J
,' lg 3 e
S l ddte
.............e initints s...../
POLICY ISSUE January 22, 1998 SECY-98-011 Fog The Commissioners From: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Sublect: POTENTIAL FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR AGREEMENT STATES FOR CLOSURE OF FORMERLY TERMINATED NRC LICENSES PurDose:
To provide a status of staff efforts to satisfy Staff Requirements Memorandum SRM-SECY 188, dated November 7,1997 and to obtain Commission approval for future actions regarding potential funding assistance for Agreement States for closure of formerly terminated NRC licenses.
Backaround:
I The Commission previously approved the staff's proposal (1) for the discontinuance of detailed reviews by NRC staff of license files and inspections for follow-up on formerly NRC licensed sites identified for further investigation in Agreement States, (2) for the referring of identified cases directly to the Agreement States for follow-up investigation, and (3) to hold the Agreement States responsible for addressing remediation of those sites where excessive contamination is confirmed by inspection (see Staff Requirements Memorandum, SRM-SECY-97-188, dated
{
November 7,1997). SRM SECY-97-188 also directed the staff to work with the Agreemsnt States to identify a mutually acceptable mechanism to provide Federal assistance to the f. I Agreement States, such as a general fund appropriation outside the NRC fee base, in dealing with these cases. In that regard, the staff was directed to consider how similar funding was made available to Agreement States in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 h, (UMTRCA) and seek input from the Agreement States on the degree to which they would support such an appropriated funds approach. The Commission requested that in presenting the options the staff should also provide any available information regarding the estimated number of sites and the Agreement States affected, the typical regulatory efforts to ensure appropriate remediation and the associated costs, and any difficulties experienced by NRC and the Agreement States in attempting to require further remediation of these sites.
CONTACT: Dennis Sollenberger, OSP NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN 415-2819 THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE 4(- N 9803130079 900122 %
b-y4 $th NR-01 PDR Xd '1 ,
e . .
y The Commissioners . 2
~ Discussion: )
i The staff prepared and sent (see Attachment 1) an All Agreement States letter informing the )
Agreement States that the NRC has determined that they are responsible for any radioactive j material remaining at a site in an Agreement State, including material originally licensed by NRC or its predecessors, where the license was terminated prior to the State becoming an Agreement ;
State. The letter also requested any available information or estimates on the impact of these responsibilities on the States' resources. Only a few States (AZ, CO, GA, IL, NC, TN, TX, WA) have responded to date. Califomia has previously corresponded with NRC on the question of regulatory responsibility for such sites located in Agreement States. The States' comments can be summarized as follows: (1) the State does not agree with NRC's position that this is an
. Agreement State responsibility, however, they will protect the citizens in the State, (2) this effort is unbudgeted work for the State and no funds are available, (3) the State cannot provide any estimates at this time since they have not yet received the files from NRC to begin a resource estimate, and (4) the State would expect NRC to pay for any remediation and/or source disposal costs not covered by former licensees. Additionally, Arizona stated that they were not informed of this potential liability when they signed their Agreement, they do not have any resources to address this liability, and they requested that the NRC, as the responsible Federal agency, take the necessary actions to protect the public health and safety of Arizona citizens. Some States have indicated they would take responsibility for the public health and safety and the protection
. of the environment by conducting the remedial action once funding is provided.
The numbers of sites that may be contaminated and need follow-up are listed in Attachment 2.
The number of States with a significant number of sites is relatively small with only two States (New York and Califomia) having ten or more sites with loose contamination and four States -
(New York, Tennessee, Califomia, and Texas) having ten or more sealed source sites pending.
The Commission should note that NRC's contractor, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is still in
- the final stage of reviewing formerly terminated licenses. Thus, additional Agreement State sites that may contain unacceptable levels of contamination or unaccounted for sealed sources will likely be identified. Agreement States will be informed of these sites as information becomes available to NRC staff.
Although the transfer of files will result in some unplanned work being transferred to the Agreement States, it appears from the general lack of comment about the appropriated funds approact' Mat a number of States may be able to accommodate this regulatory effort. The most ,
impacted States (Califomia and New York) did not respond and, along with a few other States, j may need assistance in both remediation and regulatory effort. However, the resources required by the States to do this work are still uncertain. The States will need a period of time to evaluate the number and type of sites that remain to be followed-up and to make reasonable estimates for the regulatory effort needed. The significant expense of this work transfer is the field survey, ;
site characterization, remedial action planning and the actual remediation of any contaminated site identified. Additional costs will be for Agreement State regulatory oversight and review of proposed remedial actions. Cost estimates will not be available until each Agreement State i completes the file review and conducts an initial site survey or assessment, or requires the responsible party, if known, to conduct the survey or assessment.
This process may take a few States up to a year or more to identify which sites are actually contaminated and the status of the site owner or former licensee and whether it may be possible for the State to seek remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental, Compensation, f
o The Commissioners 3 and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as NRC has considered for a few of its contaminated sites.
In some cases, additional costs associated with site characterization and remediation may have to be funded by the State, especially if cleanup under CERCLA is not requested or if CERCLA cleanup is requested and denied. The remediation costs will not be known until the extent of contamination is known for the individual sites.
As the Agreement States complete their evaluation of the files transferred from the NRC Regional offices, NPC staff will request that information be provided to NRC on the number of sites that may need iemediation, the regulatory efforts necessary to ensure appropriate remediation and their costs, and difficulties likely to be encountered in requiring further remediation. This continuing communication with the Agreement States will be accomplished through our routine program of All Agreement States letters and the routine exchange of information process between NRC and Agreement States. Through this process, staff will identify if funding support is needed and the magnitude cf the funding need. Until the Agreement States supply this information, staff believes it is premature to pursue any request to the Administration and Congress for either authorization or appropriation of funds. Information available to staff by January 1999 will be assessed to determine if the need is sufficient to support a request for funds for the purpose of providing support to Agreement States for costs associated with evaluation and remediation of these formerly licensed sites. One approach could be to include the authorization for such funds in the NRC legislative package for the 106th Congress, and include an appropriation for this purpose in the NRC appropriation request for FY 2001.
Appropriated Funds Approach Per Commission direction, staff evaluated how funding was made available to Agreement States in UMTRCA. In Title ll of UMTRCA, Congress expressly authorized up to $500,000 to be appropriated (for fiscal year 1980) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for making grants to Agreement States to aid in the development of State programs to regulate uranium recovery operations under the new requirements of UMTRCA. The House of Representatives' report accompanying NRC's FY 1980 appropriation billindicated the House Appropriations Committee provided this $500,000 for grants to States under Section 207 of UMTRCA of 1978. Ea ch Agreet.1ent State involved had to submit information that was evaluated prior to the grant being approved. The costs were associated with required infrastructure changes such as legislation, regulations, laboratory equipment, and survey equipment. The funding was provided to the State prior to entering into the amended Agreement, so that the State could meet the new requirement under UMTRCA. :n addition, Title I of UMTRCA provided for a Federal / State cost sharing where the Federa! govemment (through the Department of Energy) funded ninety percent and the State funded ten percent of the remedial action costs for certain processing sites at which uranium was produced for sale to any Federal agency prior to January 1,1971.
Agreement State completion of the work required to review formerly licensed sites does not require the infrastructure changes that the UMTRCA action required. However, the potential costs that the State may encounter to address these sites does have the potential for a significant financial impact on a State. Following the example of UMTRCA in assuming responsibility for sites formerly licensed by the NRC, Agreement States may be accepting a responsibility such that the Federal govemment may want to provide financial relief. However, NRC has allocated no funds for this purpose and effectuation of the program may require approval by the Congress (and, for practical purposes, by the Office of Management and i
The Commissioners 4 Budget), depending on the scope of the program and the size of the amounts involved. The amount needed for such support would be dependent on the number of contaminated sites without responsible parties stillin existence, the number of responsible parties without sufficient besources to fund cleanup, and the additional costs for the States to conduct regulatory reviews and oversight.
Only one Agreement State (IL) responded with comments on the concept of NRC requesting appropriated funds. The lilinois comments addressed the potential funding for work already completed by a State and that NRC should work closely with individual States to coordinate the Federal funding with each State's appropriation process. Two additional Agreement States (TN, WA) have indicated in their response to NRC's All Agroement States letter that they would seek funding from NRC because NRC or its predecessor agency terminated the licenses for these contaminated sites. One State (WA) was informally notifed that NRC is currently not funding cleanup costs associated with contaminated sites located in Agreement States. Califomia has not yet responded, but that State may also request funding because previous correspondence indicatea it believes Agreement States should not have the regulatory responsibility for these sites.
Thus, it appears there may be a need for the Commission to seek an appropriation to assist Agreement States in carrying out their responsibilities with respect to formerly licensed sites.
Authorization for such an appropriation could be requested when information is known about the number of sites, the potential costs to Agreement States, and the amount of financial assistance needed by Agreement States. Money would not be requested to fund costs associated with approved CERCLA cleanups, or cleanups by current site owners or other responsible parties. If the Congress grants NRC this authority, the annual appropriation process would be used for requesting the anticipated funding. This approach could provide NRC the specific information needed to support the authorizing legislation request.
If the contaminated sites are cleaned up by the current site owner or the former licensee, or cleanup is authorized under CERCLA, the need for NRC to make a funding request may not l arise. In such a case, the costs to an Agreement State may be small or modest, since those !
costs would be limited to regulatory review and oversight. The State of Illinois supplied some i
- information for the sites that they have closed out. This information indicates Agreement State '
costs for regulatory review and oversight of a number of transferred sites may be modest. For the thirty two sites that did not require site visits or surveys, they expended approximately 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br />. For the other twenty two sites, they have expended 300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br />. Only one site required limited remedial action which the site owner completed. The State has yet to perform the final survey before releasing the site for unrestricted use. The State's estimated cost for the total regulatory effort including the final survey is $51,500. This would close all the formerly licensed sites that NRC has identified, to date, in the State of Illinois, i
Recommendation:
The sta*f recommerids that the Commission:
- 1. E.ndorse the staff's approach of monitoring the Agreement State implementation of the closure of these cases and collection of information on the costs to the Agreement States.
l-
1 The Commissionsrs 5
- 2. . Note that, upon Commission approval, the staff will consult with the Agreement States on funding mechanisms. After the information needed is gathered and the consultation is completed, the staff will present its recommendations, including an assessment of legislative needs.
Resources-The resources for transfer of the files to the Agreement States and initial coordination with the Agreement States were addressed in SECY-97-188. The ongoing coordination with the Agreement States will be conducted as part of the routine activities of the Office of State Programs. Therefore, at this time, no additional resources are required to implement the actions discussed in this paper. Staff notes that before Agreement States complete their assessments of the transferred files, it is premature to assess the costs to States of remediation, the costs of associated Agreement State program regulatory activities, and the need for Federal funding assistance.
Coordination:
The Office of General Counsel has no legal objection to this paper. The Office of the Chief
- Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission paper and has no objection.
,,P .
L. Jopph Callan Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
- 1. All Agreement States Letter dated November 14,1997
- 2. Table of the Number of Potentially Contaminated Sites in Agreement States DISTRIBUTION:
O SECY NOTE:
OIG Commissioners' completed vote sheets / comments OPA should be provided directly to SECY by c.o.b.
OCA "Y' * ""#Y '
- Commission staff office comments, if any, EDO should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT REGIONS Friday, January 30, 1998, with an information SECY copy to SECY. 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.
p%g\
g
- UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmwaTom, n.c. mese.cooi November 14, 1997 ALL AGREEMENT STATES OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-97-080)
Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:
INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION...........
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION....XX FORMERLY LICENSED SITES AND JURISDICTION FOR REMAINING RESIDUAL MATERIALS TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION................
TECHNICAL INFORMATION,............................
OTHE R IN FORMATION............... ....................
Supplementary Information: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been reviewing previously terminated licenses to determine whether there was appropriate documentation that the sites were adequately decontaminated prior to termination of the license and release of the site. This project was initiated in 1977 for licenses terminated prior to 1965. Another effort was initiated in 1989 for licenses terminated after 1965, which was subsequently expanded to include all terminated licenses. A number of sites have been identifed for which there is insufficient documentation to ensure that the site was adequately decommissioned or to account for all sealed sources. NRC regional offices are currently working to close these records through additional file searches and, when necessary, site surveys. NRC guidance for conducting these follow-up inspections is documented in Temporary Instruction 2800/026 (Tl 2800/026), and copies were provided to the Agreement States.
Radioactive material remaining at a site located within an Agreement State, including material originally licensed by NRC or its predecessors, is the regulatory responsibility of the Agreement
- State. Therefore, an Agreement State is responsible for conducting detailed license and inspection file reviews, and investigation and remediation of any site, as appropriate, identified through NRC review of previously terminated licenses for which there is insufficient documentation to ensure that the site was property decommissioned or which has inadequate accounting of sealed sources. A number of cases have already been referred to Agreement States for follow up. Additional cases may be referred in the next few months as our contractor completes its review of old files.
l ATTACHMENT 1
O SP-g7- 080 2 NOV 14 1s7 After review of the files, sorne cases require on-site inspections to determine whether excessive contamination may be present. Up to now, NRC has conducted numerous inspections in Agreement States where the States have indicated resource constraints or have indicated that they do not believe they have regulatory jurisdiction. However, in light of our own resource constraints and our position that Agreement States have jurisdiction over these sites, NRC is phasing out detailed reviews of license files and follow-up inspections. Sites that appear to require further investigations or inspechons to property assess the sites will be referred to the appropnate Agreement States for follow up. The States will continue to be responsible for regulation of any needed remediation of any contaminated sites under theirjurisdiction. To maintain a complete database on the status of terminated license sites, Agreement States are requested to report resolution of each case to NRC for tracking. To minimize the reporting burden on the States, the resolution reports may be in the form of short summaries or copies of pertinent correspondence. These resolution reports should be sent to your respechve NRC Regional decommissioning contacts (see Enclosure 1).
Agreement State activities to review and resolve issues associated with terminated licenses referred to them will be examined during Agreement State program reviews conducted using )
the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program. However, State actions on referred cases will not affect findings of adequacy under the IMPEP unless there appears to be a significant threat to public health and safety resulting from a lack of appropriate State action.
In an effort to reduce the resource impacts on Agreement States, the Commission has directed the staff to work with the Agreement States to identify mutually acceptable mechanisms, such as 'a general fund appropriation outside the fee base," for providing Federal assistance to affected Agreement States. To identify the magnitude of an appropriation estimate, we are requesting any available information that you might have on how your State is or may be affected, such as the number of sites in your State that may need remediation, the typical regulatnry efforts needed to ensure appropriate remediation and their costs, the associated costs of remediation, and any difficulties experienced by the Agreement States in attempting to require further remediation of these sites. For Agreement States that are beginning this activity, please provide general estimates, and the basis for those estimates, for the information needs listed above. Any information available would be most useful if provided by December 10,1997.
This information request has been approved by OMB, NO. 3150-002g, expiration April 30,1998. Estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request:
3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, O minutes. Forward comments regarding burden estimate to the information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0052), Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503. NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
9 .
sp.97 080 3 510V 1 4 flB7 required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
If you have any questions about this correspondence, please contact me 'or the individual named below.
CONTACT: Dennis M. Sollenberger TELEPHONE: (301) 415-281g FAX: (301) 415-3502 INTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV (si( . AL Richard L. Bangart, Director ;
Office of State Programs J
Enclosure:
As stated I
I l
r s - .
FORMERLY LICENCED SITES REGIONAL CONTACTS Region 1: Craig Gordon/ Tony Dimitriadis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 610-337-5216/6953 CZG@NRC. GOV /AXDi@NRC. GOV Region ll: Bryan Parker U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center,23 T85 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA '0303-2415 404-562-4728 BAP@NRC. GOV Region 111: Bill Snell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road l Lisle, IL 50532 4351 630.P2g.g871 WGS@NRC. GOV Region IV: Dean Chaney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Walnut Creek Field Office 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5368 510-975-0229 HDC@NRC. GOV ENCLOSURE 1 l
C TERMINATED LICENSE SITES IN AGREEMENT STATES (UPDATED 9/18/97)
Agreement State Sites - Sites Sites Sealed Sealed Sealed identified Closed Review Sources Sources Sources by ORNL Pending identified Closed Pending by ORNL Region 1
- 1. Maine 2 2 0 1 1 0
- 2. Maryland 31 31 0 14 7 7 ,
- 3. Mass. 49 49 0 17 17 0
- 4. New Hampshire 1 1 0 0 0 0
- 5. New York 36 26 10 37 18 19
- 6. Rhode Island 4 4 0 4 4 0 Region ll
- 7. Alabama 3 2 1 14 10 4
- 8. Florida 3 2 1 5 2 3
- 9. Georgia 3 3 0 2 0 2
- 10. Kentucky 3 1 2 5 3 2.
- 11. Mississippi 0 0 0 4 3 1
- 12. North Carolina 2 2 0 3 0 3
- 13. South Carolina 3 3 0 1 0 1
'14. Tennessee 9 6 3 10 0 10 Region til
- 15. Ilinois 35 34 1 22 22 0
- 16. Iowa 0 0 0 3 3 0 Attachment 2
s .
O TERMINATED LICENSE SITES IN AGREEMENT STATES (UPDATED 9/18/97)
Agreement State Sites Sites Sites Sealed Serfed Sealed I Identified Closed Review Sources Sources Sources by ORNL Pending identified Closed Pending by ORNL Region IV
- 17. Arizona 4 0 4 1 0 1
- 18. Arkansas 1 1 0 5 4 1
- 19. California 95 55 40 43 27 16
- 20. Colorado 13 9 4 5 0 5
- 21. Kanscs 6 6 0 5 0 5 I
- 22. Louisianna 1 0 1 1 0 1
- 23. Nebraska 2 1 1 1 1 0
- 24. New Mexico 6 6 0 5 2 3
- 25. Nevada 4 2 2 4 2 2
- 26. North Dakota 3 3 0 1 0 1
- 27. Oregon 2 2 0 2 2 0 ;
- 28. Texas 10 7 3 27 9 18
- 29. Utah 6 4 2 5 3 2 i
- 30. Washington 0 6 0 l7 5 2 i i
i 2 Attachment 2