ML20217J776
| ML20217J776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/20/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Belshe S CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| SP-97-080, SP-97-80, NUDOCS 9804070005 | |
| Download: ML20217J776 (6) | |
Text
. w
, pwrQ, p -%" . UNITED STATES
- g. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.p WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 4001 g,g March 20, 1998-Ms. S. Kimberly Belsh6, Director Department of Health Services L Health and Welfare Agency 714/744 P Street -
P. O. Box 742732 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
Dear Ms. Belshe:
Thank you for your letter of January 20,1998, to Chairman Jackson regarding formerly licensed l Atomic Energy Commission / Nuclear Regulatory Commission (AEC/NRC) sites.
We recognize the importance of the jurisdictional and other issues you and other Agreement States have identified regarding such sites. To assess a number of the issues further, the Commission has directed the NRC staff to complete the actions identified in the SECY-98-011
< Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated March 3,1998 (Enclosure 1). SECY-98-011, Potential Funding Assistance for Agreement States for Closure of Formerly Terminated NRC Licensees, is included as Enclosure 2. In order to respond to the first item in the SRM, we are requesting Agreement States, such as Califomia, to advise us if they believe the initial site surveys and assessments to determine the scope of the problem are themselves so significantly expensive and difficult as to preclude the State from undertaking this preliminary step in the cleanup process. Your position on this issue is requested. This request is in addition to the information requested in All Agreement States letter SP-97-080, Formerly Licensed Sites and
' Jurisdiction for Remaining Residual Materials, dated November 14,1997. SP-97-080 requested any available information about how your State is affected by the Commission decision, such as the number of sites that may need remediation, regulatory efforts needed to ensure appropriate remediation and their costs, the associated costs of remediation, and difficulties experienced in attempting to require remediation. This information is necessary to identify mutually acceptable mechanisms, such as a general fund appropriation outside of the fee base, to reduce resource impacts on Agreement States. We will provide a more complete response to the issues and concerns identified in your letter after we have received and evaluated the requested f information. 3 We also plan to provide Agreernent States with additional information on the criteria NRC used to identify previously licensed AEC/NRC sites which should be subjected to further evaluation.
This information will be forwarded to you in the near future and may be of assistance in
$OO E H--
e ~
S g g ,w p &; w C*u Q? &
$PNY g SP- A4 9004070005 900320
'PDR STPRG ESOC
S. Kimberly Bolsh6 2 narrowing the number of sites that may have potential onsite contamination and thus, require more extensive onsite surveys.
If you have any questions, please contact Tom O'Brien of my staff on (301) 415-2308.
Sinc 9 rely It' kftI v. Ct t Richard L. Bangart, Director /
Office of State Programs (/
Enclosures:
As stated cc: E. D. Bailey, Chief Radiological Health Branch Food, Drugs & Radiation Safety Division r
T
g es, S. Kimberly Belsh6 2 20 R narrowing the number of sites that may have potential onsite contamination and thus, require more extensive onsite surveys.
If you have any questions, please contactTom O'Brien of my staff on (301) 415-2308.
Sincerely Original 8' ed B R rh Tangart, Director-Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc: E. D. Bailey, Chief Radiological Health Branch Food, Drugs & Radiation Safety Division i
Distribution:
DlR RF :DCD (SP08)?
EDO RF (G980065) _PDR (YES_f._ ' NO )
SECY (CRC-98-0085)
SDroggitis . California File RBlanton, ASPO A/S File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\TJO\CAFORML1.WPD *See previous concurrence.
' Ti roceive a cop r of this document, Indicate in the box: "C"
- Copy without attachment / enclosure *E" = Copy with attachrnent/ enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP OSP:DD NMSS:D OGC OSPQ')jl :
NAME- TO'Brien:nb:kk PHLohaus CPaperiello FCameron RLBanghYl
i DATE 02/27/98* 02/27/98* 03/06/98* 0320/98* 03/?(/98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-4, SP-A-4
/
e i
- , 3 S. Kimberly Belsh4 2 narrowing the number of sites that may have potential onsite co amination and thus, require more extensive onsite surveys.
If you have any questions, please contact Tom O'Brien of my aff on (301) 415-2308.
Sincerely Richard . Bangart, Director Office State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated -
cc: E. D. Bailey, Chief Radiological Health Branch Food, Drugs & Radiation Safety Division 4
Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP08)
EDO RF (G980065) PDR (YES f_ NO )
SECY (CRC-98-0085)
SDroggitis Califomia File RBlanton, ASPO A/S File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\TJO\CAFORML1.WPD *See previous concu '
e
?? receive e cop ' of this document, Ind6cate in the box: "C" s Copy attachment / enclosure "E" = Copt with attachmqnt/ "N" e No i;opy OFFICE OSP -l OSP:DD / l NMSS:D FOGC W OSP:D NAME TO'Brien:r'b:kk PHLohaus / CPaperiello FCameron RLBangart DATE- 02/27/98* 02/27/9B* 03/06/98* 03/ff/98 , 03/ /98 OSP MLE CODE: SP-AG-4, SP-A-4
,/
~
$ Ms. Kimberly Bolsh6, Director Department of Health Services Health and Welfare Agency 714/744 P Street Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
Dear Ms. Bolsh6:
Thank you for your letter of January 20,1998, to Chairman Jac on regarding formerly licensed I EC/NRC) sites.
Atomic Energy Commission / Nuclear Regulatory Commission (/
We are carefully considering the issues you and other Agreenpent States have raised regarding i such sites and will provide a more complete response to the psues and concems raised in your
. letter in the future. To assist us in our evaluation, we are requesting Agreement States, such as Califomia, to advise us if they believe the initial site surveys /and assessments to determine the scope of the problem are themselves so significantly expensive and difficult as to preclude the i State from undertaking this preliminary step in the cleanup is requested. This request is in additionrequested to the ininformatior / process.
All Agreement States Your for Remaining Residual Materials,
. letter SP-97-080, Formerly Licensed Sites and Jurisdictio dated November 14,1997. SP-97-080 requested any ava
' State is affected by the Commission decision, such as th'e number of sites that may need remediation, regulatory efforts needed to ensure approliriate remediation and their costs, the associated costs of remediation, and difficulties experienced in attempting to require remediation. This information is necessary to identify /nutually acceptable mechanisms, such as a general fund appropriation outside of the fee base, to reduce resource impacts on Agreement States.
We also plan to provide Agreement States with additionalinformation on the criteria NRC used to identify previously licensed AEC/NRC sites which should be subjected to further evaluation. j This information will be forwarded to you in the near future and may be of assistance in narrowing the number of sites that may have potential onsite contamination and thus, require more extensive onsite surveys.
If you have any questions, please contact Tom O'Brien of my staff on (301) 415-2308.
/
Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs cc: E. D. Bailey, Chief /
Radiologic Health Branch Food, Drugs & Radiation Safety Div[ision Distnbution-DIR RF (G8065) DCD (SP08)
EDO RF (G980065) PDR (YESf_ NO )
SECY (CRC-98-0085) Califomia File !
Sdroggitis A/S Fils l RBianton, ASPO 1
, DOCUMENT NAME: G:\TJO\CAFORMLI.LTR m . .
- . we . c. r.c - . m.
OFFICE OSP , l OSP:DDp,'gl , NM$$jl@g l OGC l OSP:D l NAME TO'Brien:ntf/L/ PHLohaus/ M d /p CPaperiello# FCameron RLBangart DATE 02/ IG /98 02/17/98 / 03/#f98 03/ /98 03/ /98 OSP FILE CODE; SP-AG-4; SP-A-4 a ]
. Ms. Kimberly Bel:hs, Direct:r Depahm:nt of He:lth Services Health and Welfare Agency 714/744 P Street Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
Dear Ms. Belsh6:
Thank you for your letter of January 20,1998, to Chairma Jackson regarding formerly licensed Atomic Energy Commission / Nuclear Regulatory Commiss' n (AEC/NRC) sites.
We are carefully considering the issues you and other Ag eement States have raised regarding such sites and will provide a more complete response to he issues and concerns raised in your-letter in the future. To assist us in our evaluation, we ar requesting Agreement States, such as California, to advise us if they believe the initial site surv ys and assessments to determine the scope of the problem are themselves so significantly ex nsive and difficult as to preclude the State from undertaking this preliminary step in the clea p process. Your position on this issue is requested. This request is in addition to the informat on requested in All Agreement States letter SP-97-080, Formerly Licensed Sites and Jurisdi ion for Remaining Residual Materials, dated November 14,1997. SP-97-080 requested any vailable information about how your State is affected by the Commission decision, such a the number of sites that may need remediation, regulatory efforts needed to ensure appr priate remediation and their costs, the associated costs of remediation, and difficulties expe enced in attempting to require remediation. This information is necessary to identify mutually acceptable mechanisms, such as a general fund appropriation outside of the fee base,f to reduce resource impacts on Agreement States. /
We also plan to provide Agreement States with add tional information on the criteria NRC used to identify previously licensed AEC/NRC sites whicp should be subjected to further evaluation.
This information will be forwarded to you in the near icture and may be of assistance in narrowing the number of sites that may have pote 'tial onsite contamination and thus, require more extensive onsite surveys.
l If you have any questions, please contact Tom OlBrien of my staff on (301) 415-2308. l Sincerely, I
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs I
/
cc: E. D. Bailey, Chief j )
Radiologic Health Branch 1 Food, Drugs & Radiation Safety Divisip,n Distribution:
DIR RF (G8065) DCD (SP08)
EDO RF (G080065) PDR (YES_f_ NO )
SECY (CRC-98-0085) Califomia File Sdroggitis A/S File RBlanton, ASPO DOCUMENT NAME: G:\TJO\CAFORMLI.LTR /
T9 receive a cop r of this docuenent. Indicato in the tpou: "C" a Copy without attachment /endosure "E" = Copo with attachment /endosure "N" = No copy J
OFFICE OSP .__ l OSP:DDge7l l, NMSS:D OGC l OSP:D l NAME TO'Brien:nb'h/ PHLohaus Md/fp CPaperiello FCameron RLBangart DATE 02/1.!? /98 0267/98 ,/[ 03/ /98 03/ /98 03/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-4; SP-A-4 1
,k..,, ,
, e,aat%
1 UNITED STATES I o R REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
'{
% March 3, 1998 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ,
MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Exe 've irector for Operations bm - -
FROM: Joh - . Hoyle, cretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS: SECY-98-011 - POTENTIAL FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR AGREEMENT STATES FOR CLOSURE OF FORMERLY TERMINATED NRC LICENSES The Commission approved the staff's approach of monitoring the Agreemsnt State's progress in closing out the case files associated with sites located in Agreement States that were formerly licensed by the NRC or its predecessor, and collecting additional information from individual Agreement States regarding the associated costs and potential funding mechanisms to provide Federal assistance, in implementing this monitoring and information collection program, however, the staff should also undertake the following additional measures:
. inquire of the States during the further consultation on funding mechanisms proposed in SECY 98-011 whether the initial site surveys and assessments to determine the scope of the problem are themselves so significantly expensive and difficult as to preclude the States from undertaking even this preliminary step in the cleanup process, in the absence of other funds or some other form of resource assistance from the NRC.
. ensure that the file review being conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is completed in March 1998, that the files are subsequently transferred to the States promptly, and that milestones are established on when NRC needs to receive information from Agreement States. The staff sh:uid make an initial recommendation on whether NRC rhould request a general fund appropriation, to cover the associated Agreement State costs for those States providing a response consistent with the FY 2000 budget cycle.
. consider the merits of an attemative approach to providing financial assistance to l individual Agreement States by developing a narrowly focused amendment to the Atomic Energy Act that would allow the Agreement States to retum their regulatory authority and responsibility for formerly licensed sites to the NRC if the licenses in question had been terminated before the SOte became an Agreement State and permit the NRC to receive appropriations off the fee base to cover the costs associated with closure of these sites.
(EOG) (SP) SECY Suspense: 941/98) 9700277 8/25/98 SECY NOTE: This SRM, SECY 98-011, and the related Voting Record will be made publicly available 5 working days after the date of the final SRM.
ENCLOStJRE 1 Sgogt@a57L.p,y,
l 2
The staff should also continue to inform the Commission of any difficulties experienced by the NRC or the Agreement States in attempting to require further remediation of these sites.
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan EDO OGC OlG CIO CFO OCA OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (by E-Mail)
'A-
.; arco POLICY ISSUE January 22, 1998 SECY-98-011 E9.r: The Commissioners From: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
POTENTIAL FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR AGREEMENT STATES FOR CLOSURE OF FORMERLY TERMINATED NRC LICENSES
Purpose:
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.
Backoround:
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 Agreement States to identify a mutually acceptable mechanism to provide Federal assistance to the Agmement 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 Tallings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (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 ENCLOSURE 2
~ ___ ___ _ - . )
- i. i ,
The Commissioners 2 Dmcussion:
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 radioactivs material remaining at a site in an Agreement State, including material originally licensed by blRC or its predecessors, where the license was terminated prior to the State becoming an Agrreemr,nt .
State. The letter also requested any available information or estimates on the impact of these I 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 l regulatory responsibility for such sites located in Agreement States. The States' comments can I be summarized as follows: (1) the State does not agree with NRC's position that this is an l 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 l 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 j of this potential liabinty when they signed their Agreement, they do not have any resources to j address this liability, and they requested that the NRC, as the responsible Federal agency, take l 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 Agreemen' States, it appears from the general lack of comment about the appropriated funds approach t at 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, 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 o proposed remedial actions. Cost estimates will not be available until each Agreement State 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 j for the State to seek remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental, Compensation,
I. ' !
The Commissioners 3 and I.iability 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 imown for the individual sites.
As the Agreement States complete their evaluation of the files transferred from the NRC Regional offices, NRC staff will request that information be provided to NRC on the number of sites that may need remediation, the ragulabry efforts necessary to ensure appropriate remediation and their costs, and diffiwlties 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 of 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 legislat!ve 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. Each Agreement 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. In addition, Title I of UMTRCA provided for a Federal / State cost sharing where the Federal 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 L
l
[
'lf s ,
C 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 still in existence, the number of responsible parties without sufficient resources 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 Illinois 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 Agreement 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 notified 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 indicates 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 res pect 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 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 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.
Recommendation:
The staff recommends that the Commission:
- 1. Endorse 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.
. s .
The Commissioners 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.
L. Jopph Callan Execulive 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 l
ne p UNITED STATES
, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmaeton, o.c. seasseem November 14, 1997 ALL AGREEMENT STATES OHlo, 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.............................
OTHER INFORMATION....................................
Supplementary Information: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been reviewing previously terminated licenses to determine whether there was appropnate 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 1985. Another effort was initiated in 198g for licenses terminated after 1965, which was subsequently expanded to include all terminated licenses. A number of sites have been identifed for %ich there is i insufficient documentation to ensure that the site was adequately decomr ,c;sioned or to account for all sealed sources. NRC regional offices are currently workir s, 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 A0reement
' State. Therefore, an A0reement State is responsible for conducting detailed license and inspection file reviews, and investigation and remediation of any site, as appropriate, identifed !
through NRC review of previously terminated licenses for which there is insufficient documentation to ensure that the site was properly 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 h the next few months as our contractor completes its review of old files.
ATTACHMENT 1
i 4
SP-g7- 080 2 E I4 W After review of the files, some cases require on-site inspections to determine whether excessive ,
2 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 it;::3+he or inspections to property assess the sites will be referred to the appropriate 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 j pertinent correspondence. These resolution reports should be sent to your respective NRC Regional decommissioning contacts (see Enclosure 1). ;
1 Agreement State actMties 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 enort to reduce the resource impacts on Agreement States, the Commission has directed the sta# 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 a#ected 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 a#ected, such as the number of sites in your State that may need remediation, the typical regulatory eMorts 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 Decorr.ber 10, igg 7.
This information request has been approved by OMB, NO. 3150-002g, expiration April 30, igg 8. 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 />,0 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
sp.g7 080 3 NOV 14 W required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a cunently valid OMB control number.
' If you have any questions about this correspondence, please contact me 'or the indwidual named below.
CONTACT: Dennis M. Sollenberger TELEPHONE: (301)415-2819 FAX * (301) 415-3502 INTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV C $lf Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
. As stated W
e i V
FORMERLY LICENCED SITES REGIONAL CONTACTS Region I: Craig Gordon/ Tony Dimitriadis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 610-337-5216Ml953 CZGONRC. GOV /AXD10NRC. GOV Region 11: Bryan Parker U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center,23 T65 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-2415 404 562-4728 BAP@NRC. GOV Region lil: Bill Snell
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 601 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 50532 4351 630-629 9871 j 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 1
l ENCLOSURE 1 f
m
- e e
TERMINATED LICENSE SITES IN AGREEMENT STATES (UPDATED 9/18/97)
Agreement State Sites Sites Sites Sealed Sealed Scaled identifled Closed Review Sources Sources Sources by ORNL Pending identified Closed Pending by ORNL Region i
- 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 111
- 15. Ilinois 35 34 1 22 22 0
- 16. lowa 0 0 0 3 3 0 Attachment 2
. ?
TERMINATED LICENSE SITES IN AGREEMENT STATES (UPDATED 9/18/97)
Agreement State Sites Sites Sites Sealed Scaled Sealed 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. Califomia 95 55 40 43 27 16
- 20. Colorado 13 9 4 5 0 5
- 21. Kansas 6 6 0 5 0 5
- 22. Louisianna 1 0 1 1 0 1
- 23. Nebraska 2 1 1 1 1 0 j
- 24. New Mexico 6 6 0 5 2 3 l
- 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. LMah 6 4 2 5 3 2
- 30. Washington 6 6 0 7 5 2 l
1 l
2 Attachment 2
4 i = .
[t[ ;
, F/M
........................................................................... g-
'y EXECUTIV ASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM [h p,f N <<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>
TASK
..... #. - G8065 - - - -- -- -- - DATE- 02/04/98 - --
MAIL CTRL. - 1998 TASK STARTED - 02/04/98
~~~~~~~~~~~~
TASK DUE - 03/05/98
~~ -~~--
TASK COMPLETED -
--~~~~~~~~~~~~
//
l TASK DESCRIPTION - A/S STATUS, NOT INCLUDING AUTHORITY OR RESPON FOR REG
~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~
OVERSIGHT OVER FAC IN THE STATE FORMERLY LICENSED BYNRC REQUESTING
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OFF. - CA REQUESTER - BELSHE
~~-~~~~~~~
WITS -
~~~~
0 FYP - N
~~~
PROG.-
PERSON
~~~~~~
- STAFF
~~~ --~~~
LEAD - PROG.
-~~~~ ..--
AREA -
PROJECT STATUS - EDO DUE DATE: 03/05/98 PLANNED ACC. -N LEVEL CODE - 1 b
h [6
~72x -
s\U G /2#J~
\
h c wA
& &(~ a w b,1 - ekn I y,
$w.
9 f k (f au l 33( hI'^gsm ,f' m gw di% h "'
[,kaa Me La~
Q. op/ol
+ -
ggylgy EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROMs DUE: 03/05/98 EDO CONTROL: G980065-DOC DT: 01/20/98 FINAL REPLY:
S. Kimberly'Belshe -
D2pt. of Health Services State of California TOs Chairman Jackson
'FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO: 98-0085 Bangart, SP DESCs. ROUTING:
i AGREEMENT STATE STATUS, NOT INCLUDING AUTHORITY OR Callan RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGULATORY OVERSIGHT OVER Thadani FACILITIES IN THE STATE FORMERLY LICENSED AND Thompson RELEASED BY NRC Norry Blaha Burns DATE: 02/03/98 Collins, NRR Paperiello,NMSS
. ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT: Cyr, OGC SP _ ,Bangart
- SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
rdinate with OGC to rT1 m
C.O
~
e 4e.
.. [
, r ?
WJ.____._-_-_-_i__---_.--_-_-_______-__-_ . J
,_.. . g .. .y.
e- ..:
- ~* '
. OFFICE.OF THE SECRETARY
' CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKETi PAPER-NUMBER: . CRC-9 8 -00 85 ~ LOGGING DATE: Feb 2 98 ACTION OFFICE: EDO
- AUTHOR:- . . S. KIMBERLY.BELSHE
= AFFILIATION: CONNECTICUT M ADDRESSEE:. CHAIRMAN JACKSON-LETTER.DATs: ,
Jan-20 98' FILE CODE:
SUBJECTi. "
. AGREEMENT STATE. STATUS, NOT INCLUDING AUTHORITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR REG OVERSIGHT OVER FACILITIES IN
-THE STATE FORMERLY LIC AND RELEASED BY NRC ACTION: Appropriate DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAli, RF SPECIAL' HANDLING': NONE CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
DATE DUE:
SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:
' AFFILIATION:.
4 r
. i
^'
t .
EDO -- G980065
. a.
4 0: .S 4 y PffE WILSON, Govemor STATE OF PMIFORNIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY '
DEPARTMENT OF- HEAL.TH SERVICES' 714/744 P STREET
' P.O. SOX 942732 SACRAMENTO, CA 94234 7320 (916) 657-1425 January 20, 1998 J
Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D., Chairman I United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Dr. Jackson:
The California Department of Health Services has received Mr. Richard L. Bangart's letter of November 14,1997, regarding sites formerly licensed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) or the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In that letter, it is stated that radioactive material remaining at a site located within an Agreement State, including material originally licensed by NRC, is the regulatory responsibility of the Agreement State. In a separate letter dated December 5,1997, there _were 133 previously terminated licenses identified.
California became an Agreement State in 1962. In that agreement, California did not accept regulatory authority over the 133 sites in California formerly licensed by AEC/NRC. At the present time,60 of the original 133 California sites licensed by AEC/NRC have been identified
- by your agency as open due to lack of appropriate documentation of site decontamination.
f The NRC states that it is transferring responsibility for the site review and closure to California because of your resource constraints and your position that Agreement States have f jurisdiction over these sites. The current California agreement with NRC does not require the state to accept this workload. The Department also has resource constraints and our radiologic
' health program does not have the staffing or funding to accept your additional workload. The Califomia Radiologic Ilealth Program is supported by fees paid by users of radioactive materials.
It would be inappropriate to use those fees to support activities which do net directly benefit those fee payers.
In summary, we deem our Agreement State status as not including regulatory authority or responsibility for regulatory oversight over facilities in the state formerly licensed and released by NRC. In order to properly protect public health, it is requested that your agency take
. immediate action to notify the present owners of the 60 Califomia license sites which you have
, identified as' open. The Department will assist NRC to the extent possible in closing these sites, but California will not accept responsibility on sites previously licensed and terminated by your Lagency.
Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D.
. Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact me or James W. Stratton, M.D.; M.P.H., State Health Oflicer and Deputy Director, Prevention Services,'at (916) 657-1493 Sincerely,
.$.b$b h5 S. Kimberly Belsh6 Director cc: Governor's Office State Capitol
' Sacramento, CA 95814 a .
q t
__.