ML20199B922

Comments on Secy 97-188 Formerly Licensed Sites Identified for Further Investigation in Agreement States. Approves Option 3 & Would Eliminate Evaluation of States Activities from Impep

ML20199B922
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/18/1997
From:	Diaz N, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20199B894	List: ML20199B890 ML20199B896 ML20199B922 ML20199B951 ML20199B956 ML20248J599
References
SECY-97-188-C, NUDOCS 9711190153
Download: ML20199B922 (8)

Text

.

• I approvo Option 3 and would i eliminate evaluation of States'

/  % activities from the IMPEP. (See p*

-).

edits to All Agreement Statca' letter).

\,...../ (

1 n

POLICY ISSUE *2 = 4h 8' * '"

(NEGATIVE CONSENT)

Auoust 18. 1997 SECY-97-188 FOR: The Comissioners FROM- L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

FORMERJ.Y LICENSED SITES IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN AGREEMENT STATES PURPOSE:

To inform the Commission of the staff's intent to revise its approach for follow up e formerly licensed sites identified for further investigation in Agreement States.

D.[SCUSSION:

In response to questions raised by General Accounting Office audits in 1976 and 1989, the staff has conducted reviews of 3rminated license files, with contractor assistance, primarily from 1977 - 1982 and from 1989 to the 3 resent. Under Nuclear Regulatory Commission contract. Oak Ridge National

_aboratory (ORNL) has almost completed its review of terminated fuel cycle and material licenses to determine whether the sites have been properly decommissioned. ORNL reviews relevant information from license files and analyzes it through a computerized evaluation system, to_ estimate the prohability and magnitude of site contamtpAt. ion from loose _ materials- and_t.o

_ Gn_tify SeaMd--snurre nnt a4.quatelyi t ounted_f.or__10_the_lig_ ens,det'ofi1es.

th_e License files indicating the greatest pu entiaf hazard are referre regions for more detaile.d_tey_lfEand/or follow-up inspac. tion. Many of?6e sites are in Agreement States, and therefore not under direct NRC jur13 diction (see Attachment 1 for additional background). The review of terminatedi i license files and follow-up to determine whether facilities were pro decontamincted is expected to be completed in FiscalCYear (FY)  : 19

@ l CONTACTS: Lawrence Bell. DWM/NMSS (301) 415-7302 g John T. Buckley, DWM/NHSS SECY NOTE: To BE MADE PUBLICLY (301) 415-6607 AVAILABLE WlEN THE FINAL SRM Is MADE AhILABLE l

l 9711190153 971107 *^,.,,

PDR cot 1MS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR WSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSb'

V The Connissioners 2-NRC Constraints Legal constraints and resource consideritions have led the staff to reexamine NRC's role in addressing sites in Agreement-States. In some cases, after consultation with the States, NRC has inspected formerly licensed sites in

-Agreement States. However, if' excessive contamination at a site is confirmed.

_it has been the ltaff'c pnt_ition that the_Agteement State ic reennnsible -for verseeina its remediation. The statT Ts concerned that NRC's continued

~

+/inspection nvolvement of NRC licensees at sites and formerly in licensed Agreement States diverts sites in non-Agreement States.

Three' options were considered'for providing follow-up on terminated sites.

Option 1: NRC would continue to conduct detailed license file reviews and on-site ins)ections, for sites in Agreement States identified by 01NL. Agre: ment States would be responsible for addressing remediation of those sites where excessive contamination is confirmed by NRC inspection. This is the current NRC 3ractice. Resources required: 1.3 full time equivalent ( UE) per year.

Option 2: Continue detailed reviews-of license files for Agreement State sites identified by ORNL. but do not conduct on-site inspections. Sites requiring insDeritons_muld_be referred Aareement Stat,ec wntild ha

~

in the Aneggment Statae_

resonnsible for addressina remediation of those sites where ~

- excessiva enntWetinn is confirmed by inspection.

Resources required: 0.6 FTE per year.

Option 3- Stop conducting detailed reviews of license files and inspections for sites in Agreement States. Refer identified ca.see directly to tha Aare9 ment States for follow-up_

anyes,,t.,gn.100 tt _ Agreement States would be responsible for

. addressino ramadist-W, of those mitas where excessive wnHHiinatinn ic ennfirmad by inspection. Resources-TFquired: 0.2 FTE per year.

' Regardless of which option is implemented, the staff would complete (with ORNL) the initial screening of all terminated licenses, regardless of their

/ location, and evaluate Agreement State programs to resolve terminated licenses y during program reviews conducted under the Integrated Materials Performance l

Evaluation Program (IMPEP).

Historically, approximately 1.0 FTE per year was budgeted for the regions to follow up on all formerly licensed sites identified by ORNL. In FY 1996, the Regions expended approximately 3.9 FTE, of which 1.3 FTE, were for sites located in Agreement' States. Therefore, eliminating expenditures on Agreement

-State cases would allow focus of limited resources on cases under NRC jurisdiction.

e -, - n w-my , -: . ,:,~-n

The Commissioners Aareement State Concerns ,

In a letter dated November 5, 1996, t,h_e_Sjate of C m fornia objected-to.JRC's position._tha_t Cal f_ sites roforro7FTn_ifornia haLregulatory the_SR t u tter NRC-4nspection. . responsibility California believes that for it two_

- does not have-jurisdiction over licenses terminated before it became an Agreement State. Other Agreement States have verbally expressed similar objections to NRC's decision.

In addition,.Several Agreement States have said that NRC has a " moral.

t pb3atinn" to re_ solve cases that._ predate Agreement-State nversight. Also.

many Agreement States consider romodial vtion aJtato nhligatioD_jf a -

licensee . fails to pro)erly clean up its site. For this reason, the States seeI sites identified by NRC as potential large financial obligations being imposed on the States.

Although the staff understands the States' resource concerns, we nevertheless believe that NRC's legal and resource constraints dictate that the sites must be addressed by the States that have jurisdiction. Although most of the interaction with the Agreement States on this issue has been informal. the staff did discuss this issue at the 1996 "All Agreement States." meeti"g and committed to providing the Agreement States with a formal statement of position. . The positions reflected in this paper were also discussed with the

. Organization of Agreement States Executive Board during an Office of State Programs conference call on May 21, 1997. A decision to clarify that regulatory responsibility for these sites is under the authority of Agreement States, and to include this as part of the IMPEP review, will most likely continue to be a cause of concern to some Agreement States. This concern may necessitate the need for further formal discussion of this issue with the Agreement States. The staff notes that Texas and Illinois have already acted to address their sites _. California appears to be the primary critic of the Tommission's colicv_ Note that Cal 1fornia nas qu, or tne 101 sites laentTfied

-in Agreement States, that require additional review and where review is pending.

RESOURCES:

The FY 1999 Internal Program / Budget proposal is based on the implementation of Option 3 and includes 0.2 FTE in FY 1998 and FY 1999 for follow-up. on sites in Agreement States. If this cotion is not approved, an additional 1 FTE would g

be required to continue NRC's current practice (Option 1). A reimbursable y agreement would be negotiated if an Agreement State were to request technical '

assistance from NRC.

CONCLUSION:

Unless otherwise directed, the staff plans to reduce expenditures associated

with the review of terminated licenses by ceasins detailed file reviews and

' insoections of sites under Aareement State lurisciction and.refarri_ng i ~T5entified cases to the Agrdinent States for appropriate investigation (Option

,-n v-.+, ww,.

I Die Commissioners -4::

3). The staff will. continue to provide the States with general technical i assistance and cooperation in completing-this program, to ensure that all formerly licensed sites are reviewed and remediated where appropriate.

Agreement-States will-be informed of the staff's decision; including NRC's ,

position on regulatory jurisdiction, by the issuance of an All Agreement i States letter addressing this subject (see Attachment 2). To maintain a complete database on the status of terminated license sites. Agreement States 3 will be requested to report resolution of each case to NRC. for tracking. In i addition. Agreement' State actions to review and resolve terminated licenses referred to them will be evaluated during Agreement State program reviews j conducted under IMPEP. ,

'C00RCINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel (0GC) has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. However. OGC has prepared a separate memorandum on this matter. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper and has no objection to'the discussion of resources.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Commission note that the staff will initiate these actions within ten business days, unless otherwise directed by the Commissior ,

L. seph Callan EX JtiVe Director-for Operations Attachments:

1. Additional background

2. Draft letter to Agreement States DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA ,

oIG' oPA

-. OCA CIo CFo EDo-l SECY "-

SECY NOTE: IN THE ABSENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS To THE CONTRARY SECY WILL NOTIFY THE STAFF oN THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4,1997, THAT THE COMMISSION, BY NEGATIVE CONSENT, ASSENTS TO THE ACTION PROPOSED IN THIs PAPER.

c ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND ON FORMERLY LICENSED SITES In 1976, the General Accounting Office (GAO) raised concerns about the decommissioning of sites formerly licensed by Nuclear Regulatory Comission's ,

predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. In response NRC agreed to review the terminated license files.' Between 1977 and 1982, an NRC contractor. Oak '

Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). reviewed the docket files for all 16.000-  !

fuel cycle and material licenses terminated before 1965, to verify whether the sites had been properly decommissioned. .

In 1989. GAO-issued a report critical of NRC decomissioning procedures and criteria. Chairman Carr subsequently made a commitment to Congress-to review licenses terminated since 1965. ORNL was again contracted to review all To assure a complete review, the license files retired between 1965 and 1985.

staff subsequently expanded the effort to include all licenses terminated through 1996, including a reexamination of those terminated before 1965.

As of December 1996. ORNL had completed its review of all licenses terminated through 1985 -- about 33.000 files. ORNL has also completed its review of ap3roximately 4000 of the 10.000 licenses terminated after 1985, an(f is.

scleduled-t0 cp}nto the nrninct in March 1998: ORNL reviews relevant

~Tnformation from'llcense f'iles and analyzes it through a computerized evaluation system to estimate the probability and magnitude of site contamination from loose materials not adequately accounted for in license files. This system also examines the potential risk from sealed sources not adequately accounted for in the license files. A score is assigned to licenses that do not have adequate documentation of site cleanup and materials disposition, to provide a ranking of the potential hazard and a priority, relative to other licenses. All files of terminated licenses with scores above a certain level are referred to the regions, for appropriate follow up.

Based on ORNL's review to date. 636 licenses for unsealed radioactive tely 450 material -

have been referred to the regions for further evaluation. Ap

-i hen 5E5-hove ueen determinea to oe pruperly deweiss16Tne i Titeh were ~

found to De contaminated; and the remaincer are still under r. v.cw -Six (significant cases have been olacec in the Site Decomissioning Managament J. Plan.. ORNL has also identifie 559 licenses viith sealed sources not accounted for. Of these 116 have been e ated after NRC-follow-up review, and the remainder are still under review.--

In many instances, a site inspection is necessary to assess a case. For sites in Agreement States, the Regions have notified the States, and requested However, many States _have inspections, with NRC accompaniment, if necessary.

informallLdeclined those reauests due to resource Ifmitations or Dolicy/ legal Therefore, the NRC staff has conducted some y'pnT1tionsadootedbytheStates.

insoections without Agreement State participation. Sites found to be T &ntaminated in an Agreement State are referred to the State, because under a

~

3 274b Agreement. NRC has discontinued federal regulatory authority over certain Atomic Energy Act materials, and the State has assumed regulatory authority uung State law. Therefore, any residual radioactivity (covered by a 274b Agreeme'iit) at formerly licensed sites in an Agreement State is subject to -/-

Attachment 1 we+ wor --_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

4.

- 4 regulation by the State: -Abou 11 contaminated sites have already been reser,ec to the States, and it. tely that additional sites could be .

?

referred as the file reviews are completed through March 1998. ORNL.has identified -101 sites in Agreement States, which need further review and are Uii pending. riost of these sites arTin California (40). and New York (36),

43 an addition,183 sealed source licenses still under review are located in >

Agreement States. 3 f

i ,.

1 8

e 4

M

.e a ar

• *4 UNITED STATES p

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'g & WASHINGTON, D.C. 30e064001

.o 4.,

...../

ALL AGREEMENT STATES MASSACHUSETTS, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA

)

TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP 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 appropriate documentation that the sites were adequately This decontaminated project was prior to termination of the license and release of the site.

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 identified for which there is insufficient documentation to ensure that the site was adequately decomissioned 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 (TI 2800/026), and copies were provided to the Agreement States.

%ioactivematerialremainingatasitelocatedwithinanAgreementState.

including material originally licensed by NRC or its predecessors, is the

regulatory responsibility of the Agreement State. Therefore, an Agreement

%te is responsible for conducting detailed license reviews, and investigation and remediation of any site identified 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.

Attachment 2

~ SP ~After review of the files, some cases require on-site inspecticn to' determine whether excessive contamination may be present. Up-to nows NRC ru conducted numerous- inspections-in Agreement. States where the States have in: 'ated resource constraints or have indicated that they do not.believe the; have

- regulatory jurisdiction. -However, in light of our-or, resource c6nstr4ints-

• -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 aopear to require further investigations or inspections to properly assess the s'ites 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 their jurisdiction. 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. t" edditi^n: 4;reent 4t+te-est i vi ti es- to_.rev4ew-aftd-resolve

_ issue awiatsf with ter-inated licenses-r+Jerfed to theiii will be evaluated

@ng agremnt state 5grr revi es conducted using the Ldegiated

_ Mater _tah Perfor=nce EU eation Dragram If you have any questions about this correspondence, please contact me or the -

individual named below.

Contact:

Dennis M. Sollenberger

- (301) 415-2819 (301) 415-3502

- INTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV Richard L. Bangart. Director Office uf State Programs g

Y

- . , - , , ,m- ,- ,- , ,, ----.,-m . . , . - .