ML20134B648

Forwards Response to Re Gao Rept, Nuclear Regulation Slow Progress in Identifying & Cleaning Up Licensee Contaminated Sites, & Site Decommissioning Mgt Plan Program

ML20134B648
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/22/1995
From:	Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Glenn J SENATE
Shared Package
ML20133N206	List: ML20133N204 ML20133N280 ML20133N285 ML20133N294 ML20133N302 ML20133N308 ML20133N314 ML20133N328 ML20133N345 ML20133N437 ML20134B648
References
FOIA-96-448 FACA, NUDOCS 9509290133
Download: ML20134B648 (10)

Text

. __ ._

N UNITED STATES

!4 MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,* * " WASHINGTON, D.C. 2065tK1001 s li j June 22. 1995 k...../

CHARMAN l

The Honorable John Glenn Ranking Member Comittee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-6250

Dear Senator Glenn:

I am responding to your letter of May 8,1995, regarding the General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled, " Nuclear Regulation Slow Progress in Identifying and Cleaning Up Licensee's Contaminated Sites" and our Site j Decomissioning Management Plan (SDMP) program, which is addressing 51 contaminated sites. The Comission reviewed and considered the GA0 report and, while agreeing with their basic findings, believed that a fuller appreciation of the complexity of the issues was required. The Comission i discussed the report with the GA0 at a public meeting held on May 19, 1995, and believes that GA0 now better understands the complex issues being addressed by the SDMP and the difficulty in ensuring the safe, effective, and timely decomir.sioning of these sites.

Your letter raised additional questions about our SDMP program. The Comission's responses to your specific questions are enclosed.

4 If you or your staff have further questions, please contact me or Dennis K. Rathbun, NRC's Director of Congressional Affairs. Mr. Rathbun can be reached by telephone at (301) 415-1776.

Sincerely, Ivan Selin

Enclosure:

8

Response to Questions 5=

EE E$ 3 n

1 hh - . :: 1 - ^ ":j e, u

in a :_ c :3. v in w e d uccCon 3 b "

A:t, F0lA w:g::.y/T b lE -

n; i- w a7

/

9 50419 0133 KA

Responses to Senator Glenn Ouestions Ouestion 1: " Finally, on June 21, 1994, Congressman Synar and I chaired a joint ,

i hearing on radioactive contamination at sewage treatment plants.

This hearing focused in part on the contamination and subsequent difficulties encountered at two SDNP sites, Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's Southerly Plant. Since the hearing, the situation at Southerly and AMS has worsened considerably. I would note that two of the three GAO recommendations on this issue remain open. Please provide me with an update as to what NRC is doing to resolve this situation, and your assessment as to whether the NRC should reevaluate its approach on this case."

Resnonse: As you are aware, in November 1994 the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NE0RSD) obtained a temporary restraining order that i allowed NE0RSD to place a plug in the Advanced Medical Systems, Inc.

(AMS) lateral sewer line that connuted AMS with NE0RSD's interceptor sewer line. This plug isolated AMS from the NE0RSD .

sewer treatment system. Subsequent to the plug pl1 cement, l j

groundwater filled the existing sewer lines on AMS's property and '

rendered the foundation drainage system inoperable. As a result, water entered the basement of the London Road facility. Due to the presence of cobalt-60 in the basement of the building, the water became contaminated with cobalt-60.

AMS and NRC have been monitoring the situation caused by the water entry into the facility. The NRC staff has issued a license amendment to AMS which would authorize treatment of the contaminated water in the basement and the sewer 1.,as, and excavation and evaluation of contamination that may reside in the underdrain system and in the soil, in the area of the lateral sewer line.

Regarding the two open recommendations from the GAO report titled

" Action Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants," during the June 1994 hearings on sewer reconcentration, you were informed that NRC planned to review the i

results of the study being conducted by Pacific Northwest j

Laboratories (PNL) on the effects of modern sewer treatment technology on reconcentration of soluble radioactive materials in i the sewer discharges. Since then, the results of the study have i l

been reviewed by NRC and were shared with the Environmental Protection Agency, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and with other sewage treatment consortiums. In addition, NRC has reviewed the comments received on the February 1994 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that solicited comments on a number of issues associated with NRC's sewer release regulations. Based on our review of the PNL Study, comments received on the ANPR, and the conservative analysis in NUREG/CR-5814, " Evaluation of Exposure l Enclosure !

2 .

Pathways to Man from Disposal of Radioactive Materials into Sanitary Sewer systems," NRC is currently considering the need for alternative modeling for the sewer pathway. Such modelling efforts  !

may take one to two years to complete. Based on the results of that effort, NRC would then determine if revision of the regulations regarding sewer disposal is warranted.

Question 2: "Of 50 sites in the program (11 of which are in Ohio) only 3 have been cleaned up, one-fourth the number which NRC estimated would be done by 1994. None of the Ohio sites has been cleaned up and removed from the list."

Response: Actually five sites, including o;ie in Cleveland, Ohio, have been removed from the SDMP list (Allied Signal in Teterboro, New Jersey; i Budd Company in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Old Vic in Cleveland, ,

Ohio; Chevron in Pawling, New York; and AMAX in Wood County, West

' Virginia). Although many sites remain on the list, we have made '

substantial progress in the remediation of these sites since the i initiation of the SDMP program in 1990. (See Attachment A)

Question 3: "While the risk may only be "long-term," and only incurred if people take up residence and work on the site, NRC should, nevertheless, make every effort to minimize the risk to the public. After all, i would you and your family wish to live next to one of these SDMP sites? Especially when it is not clear if, when, or how the site  !

will be cleaned up?" '

Resoonse: The SDMP program is intended to minimize risks, both short-term and I long-term, to the public. We are also reviewing the decommissioning '

process for our program to try to expedite remediation of SDMP cases while ensuring protection of the public and environment, and, at the same time, reduce our expenditure of resources and the time it takes to complete decommissioning. Also, see response to question #4.

Question 4: "The GA0 report highlights a number of factors that contribute to cleanup delays at SDhP sites and that are beyond the control of NRC.

However, there are a number of actions that NRC could take to limit the possibility of further contamination er to reduce cleanup delays. To limit the spread of contamination, NRC could: 1) ensure that sites are properly secured to limit any possibility of contamination migration (i.e., groundwater contamination) and 2) ,

expedite its review of terminated licensed sites that need the I increased oversight, guidance and assistance afforded by the SDMP program. To further reduce cleanup del /.ys, NRC could: 1) institute a management information system to allow it to better manage resources and workflow; and 2) be more proactive in providing technical assistance to unlicensed or previously licensed sites that require further cleanup."

3 Response: As part of our reviews, we assess the current conditions at each site to ensure that the site is secured and controlled, and that migration from airborne, surface-water, or groundwater releases are within NRC requirements. We are currently developing a management information system that would help us to better manage our resources and workflow, and provide us project status and other site infomation needed to respond to various questions from parties -

outside the NRC.

To be more proactive in providing technical assistance, NRC has completed a number of projects related to decommissioning. This assistance is in the form of rulemakings, regulatory guidance documents, and workshops. This assistance is more strictly

" regulatory guidance" so that we maintain our independent regulatory role. In July 1993, NRC promulgated a final rule on decommissioning recordkeeping. This rule requires licensees to keep records of a) areas where licensed material das stored or used outside restricted areas; b) areas where spills have occurred; c) locations and contents of current and previous burial areas within the site; and d) equipment involved, in the licensed activity, that will remain on site at the time of license termination. Also, ail areas designated and formerly designated as restricted areas are required to be listed, as well as as-built drawings and modifications of structures and equipment in restricted areas. The availability of records describing current and former contaminated areas, and the requirement to submit the necessary records with the decommissioning plan, ensure that the docket files of licenses teminated in the future will have adequate characterization information and that significant areas of contamination will be identified during decommissioning. At the time of license termination, NRC rules require licensees to conduct radiation surveys of their premises, and submit results of the survey to NRC, or to demonst ate that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use in some other manner. NRC responded to a 1989 GAO recommendation by developing procedures in a standard review plan (SRP) to ensure that appropriate decommissioning planning, 'nspections, record-keeping, and temination surveys are conducted. NRC also developed guidance for site characterization, dose assessment, and termination survey protocols. NRC is now developing a Manual Chapter to integrate existing guidance. NRC also conducted two public workshops on license survey and termination procedures, and on site characterization.

Question 5: "Of particular concern to me is that GA0 finds that documentation for 3 percent of the 29,000 licensees thus far reviewed is inadequate to determine whether the sites are now clean. Of roughly 400 sites which do not have adequate documentation, will further characterization be required? What sites does this include? How much will this cost? When will it be started and completed? What steps are being taken to ensure that current characterization records are adequate, so this problem will be avoided in the future?

4 In addition, how will NRC determine the status and condition of

' sites with sealed sources for which adequate documentation is not  !

available?" 1 l

Response: NRC's contractor has completed its review of approximately 28,000 '

licenses terminated and retired before 1985 and has identified about 600 licenses authorizing possession of radioactive material in loose i or bulk fom as not having adequate documentation to determine that  :

the sites meet NRC's criteria for release for unrestricted use. l Lack of adequate documentation does not indicate that there is '

residual contamination; however, without adequate documentation, NRC is unable to confirm the absence of residual contamination. I Therefore, NRC, in an effort to obtain adequate documentation for confirmation purposes, launched an initiative having Regional offices 1) search for additional records; 2) interview NRC, State,  !

and licensee employees; and 3) conduct site visits and surveys, as I appropriate. Of the 600 licenses identified, over 200 have been Of the remaining eliminated from concern through further review. l approximately 400 licenses, 24 licenses it 26 sites have b;)

Five of those 26 sites further characterization and remediation. l have been added to the SDNP program and 4 have been released for l unrestricted use following remediation. The remaining licenses have  ;

yet to undergo further review to determine whether there is site ]

contamination. NRC's Regional offices, in consultation with NRC )

Headquarters, will detemine whether additional surveys orcha responsible for any needed work. l l

NRC has completed the review of all files for licenses terminated Staff is proceeding to review remaining and archived before 1985. ,

-files for licenses terminated before 1985, but archived in later ,

years. The staff plans to review files for selected licenses

)

terminated after 1985, including, for example, licenses authorizing ,

possession of loose or bulk source and special nuclear material. t l

Attached is the list of sites At that thisthe contractor time, NRC is unable identified to makefor further review (Attachment B).

a firm e' stimate of the number of sites that will have to beThe characterized. Based on our experience to date, cannot be estimated at this time.

we believe that NRC personnal will be required to visit less than half of the roughly 400 remaining sites to determine whether there In addition, NRC has used a contractor to assist is contamination.

in surveys at a small number of sites, and this may be necessary for several more of the sites yet to be examined.

To ensure that characterization records are adequate, in July 1993, NRC promulgated the recordkeeping rule discussed under Question 4 above.

i

5 l

! The contractor has identified about 500 licenses for which 4

! documentation was not adequate to account for all sealed sources. '

2 The objective of reviewing licenses with sealed sources not accounted for is to determine the disposition of the sealed source.

j Regional inspectors have been able to determine the disposition of i some sources by contacting former and present licensees, source manufacturers, State regulatory personnel, and others who have i provided documentation of transfer or disposal.

i Ouestion 6: "Please explain the criteria for being included or not included on

the SDMP program. What constitutes " acceptable progress" toward l cleanup? Which 12 sites meet the criteria, but are not included in

the program?"

j  !

j Response: The criteria for listing a site on the SDMP follow:

! a. The responsible organization may not be financially viable l (e.g., inability to pay for or unwillingness to perform l- decommissioning);

l b. There are large amounts of contaminated soil or unused

settling ponds or burial grounds that may be difficult to j decommission; i c. There is long-term presence of contaminated, unused buildings; i

! d. The license was.previously teminated, but residual j contamination exceeds unrestricted release limits; and i e. There is contamination or potential contamination of the groundwater from on-site wastes.

l l In some cases (e.g., some previously terminated licenses), the j decommissioning actions are simple and can be completed within a

( short period of time. If the responsible party is willing to i perform decommissioning and there are no unique decommissioning j issues that require resolution, we will generally not list the site j in the SDMP, even though it otherwise meets the SDMP listing j" criteria. Our objective is to place sites, with difficult decommissioning issues, on the SDMP to ensure that they receive adequate NRC staff and management attention, and not list sites that require less intensive NRC efforts. NRC has identified 26 sites associated with terminated licenses as having residual contamination in excess of current criteria, four of which have been remediated and released for unrestricted use (see Attachment B for a list of the sites). All 26 have been candidates for the SDMP under the fourth criterion above (the four released are no longer candidates).

6 l

Ouestion 7: "I am concerned about the possibility of further Federal liability from these sites. Has the NRC completed any analysis to determine whether any of the SDMP sites will need to be cleaned up under l CERCLA? Who is liable to pay for the cleanup of an SDMP site if the l original licensee goes out of business or declares bankruptcy? Has l l this happened or do you anticipate it happening for any of these sites?" l Response: As part of NRC's regulatory oversight of contaminated sites, we critically assess the financial viability of licensees and responsible parties. NRC established financial assurance requirements for decommissioning in 1988, and we are still phasing in these requirements. Currently, residual radioactive material contamination at two SDMP sites is being reme('.ated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act  ;

(CERCLA) -- the Pesses Company site in Pulaski, Pennsylvania and the l West Lake Landfill in St. Louis, Missouri. Non-radioactive i hazardous substances are being remediated under CERCLA at 10 l additional SDMP sites. However, it is important to note that NRC licensees are remediating the radioactive material at these sites and the radioactive material remediation is being accomplished without having to use monies from the CERCLA trustfund. In addition, the State of Ohio is reviewing remedial actions for radiological and non-radiological contamination at the Shieldalloy site in Cambridge, Ohio, under a CERCLA-type program. NRC is coordinating with the State of Ohio at the site. At this time, the remediation of all of the other sites is being addressed by the licensees or the responsible parties. It is possible that some of the currently listed sites or sites identified in our review of terminated licenses may require CERCLA action in the future.

However, it is difficult to predict future corporate defaults. Our objective, where it is legally possible, is to direct the financial obligation of remediation to the former licensee or its legal successor. However, if the licensee or responsible party is bankrupt and we have exhausted all means within our authority to compel remediation, we could use the provisions of CERCLA to obtain site remediation. Using the provisions of CERCLA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to identify all potentially responsible parties and recover any remediation costs from those parties. In the Pesses and West Lake Landfill cases, EPA is identifying the responsible parties and is attempting to place the financial burden for remediation on those responsible parties rather than the public taxpayer.

Question 8: "Though the GA0 report does not examine the Agreement State l

programs, I am interested in whether any Agreement States have l established an SDMP-type program. Are Agreement States required to have such a program? Does the NRC have an estimate of how many l SDMP-type sites there are in the Agreement States? Has NRC communicated in any way " lessons learned" from the SDMP program to the Agreement States?"

l

7 Response: NRC has been working extensively with the Agreement States on SDMP- l type issues over the past several years. As a result of a staff l briefing on the SDMP, the Comission, in November 1993, requested 1 more definitive information on the experiences of the Agreement States in identifying and remediating contaminated sites. The NRC staff reported the results of this infonnation-gathering effort in the enclosed memoranda to the Comission dated March 18, 1994, and August 24, 1994 (Attachments C and D). Five Agreement States (Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Hampshire, and Texas) reported having an SDMP-type program. The information provided to NRC by the 3 Agreement States indicates that 17 of the Agreement States reported having a potential of 95 SDMP-type sites. The August 24 memorandum includes a matrix that sumarizes the status of SDMP programs in the Agreement States.

The Agreement States must require their licensees to safely control and remediate all contaminated sites, but they are not required to have a formal, separately identifiable, SDMP program. The question of whether NRC should require Agreement States to develop a program equivalent to NRC's SDMP was recently evaluated by the NRC staff and reported to the Comission in the enclosed May 1995 memorandum. The Commission has agreed with the staff recomendation that NRC not i require Agreement States to develop formal SDMP-equivalent programs (Attachment E). -

The NRC staff has comunicated " lessons learned" to the Agreement States in a number of ways. NRC hosted a workshop on March 23, 1994, designed to provide Agreement States with programatic and technical information about NRC's SDMP program to emphasize the importance of timely remediation, and share NRC experience in addressing issues (often beyond NRC control) that can contribute to delays in remediation. A more detailed follow-up workshop that focused entirely on the technical aspects of site termination surveys was held on June 1, 1994. NRC also conducted a technical site characterization workshop on November 28-29, 1994. Nearly all Agreement States were represented at each of these workshops. In addition, NRC has provided various technical information and studies and policy and guidance directives on site decomissioning to the Agreement States.

Question 9: " Finally I would like a " status report" for sites in the SDMP program. For each site could you please provide a sumary of the current cleanup status, including: the estimated completion date; total cleanup cost; specific impediments to achieving final cleanup (and removal from the SDMP list); and NRC's best guess as to whether there is or will be no Federal liability (i.e. as a result of Federally-generated contamination or because the site will be remediated under CERCLA). Also, please provide the annual number of FTEs who have been assigned to this program since its inception."

8 Response: We are currently preparing an update of the SDMP program document,

" Site Decommissioning Management Plan," NUREG-1444. We are l

scheduled to complete the update in June 1995. This update will contain status reports on each of the SDMP sites and will identify specific impediments to achieving final remediation and removal from the SDMP list. We will provide you a copy of this document when it is completed. .

Definitive cost estimates are not available at some SDMP sites since site personnel have not yet characterized the sites or identified the remediation approaches they plan to use. Where cost estimates are available, we have listed these data in Attachment F. Some of the cost estimates are preliminary and may change based on further analysis by the licensee or responsible party or following promulgation of NRC's final rule on radiological criteria for decommissioning. We have also annotated where Federal liability exists or where there is a possibility of CERCLA involvement.

The budgeted FTE levels for the SDMP program have been as follows:

FY90 - 17 FTE FY91 - 35 FTE FY92 - 34 FTE FY93 - 48 FTE FY94 - 35 FTE FY95 - 38 FTE The budgeted FTE include overhead (clerical support, administrative support, management at the Branch Chief level and above) and time expended on activities such as staff development, professional meetings, general administration, annual leave, etc. l l

I i

y g --_, _

- , y , - ,r,-

~

Rccont Progross Overview Activities Completed by April 1995 i

Characterization h'I('

30 DP Submittal * $9 ,

DP Approval * - 15

~

v_:

us i Final Survey Report g xs ,

9 Confirmatory Survey F,_,,_,, s r; s i Release Site '..

5 s K x  ;

J...___..._,..._ ._

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

$ # of Sites ,

A Before 4/1/93 U 4/1/93-4/1/95 i 4

5

> *DP = Decommissioning plan for partial or entire site i

4 May 19,1995

)MP Commission Brief i

i

'1

), ,

,7,6 68"84

r 9'e,,

!- 1

[ f UNITED STATES i L f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

i i

k..*/

• wasmaston. o.c. mass sooi March 18, 1994 l MEMORANDUM TO: The Chairman

! Commissioner Rogers .

j commissioner Remick i Commissioner de Planque FROM: James M. Taylor l Executive Director for operations 1

i

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRIEFING ON SITE

'DECONKISSIONING MANAGMENT PLAN

. Based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff briefing on the

{ Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP), the Commission, in a j November 18, 1993 Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), requested

more definitive information on the criteria used by the Agreement l States for the release of contaminated sites including those i contaminated with naturally-occurring radioactive material j (NORM). The information was to include the types of approaches i the Agreement States are allowing in terms of restricted use or

! perpetual care.

In response, the office of State Programs (OSP) and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), developed nine specific questions for Agreement State response (Attachment 1) to j assist in responding to the SRM and to aid in preparing for a

March 23, 1994 Agreement State Workshop on establishing SDMPs.

l These were in addition to the four questions asked of the Agreement States in preparation for the November 8, 1993 l Commission meeting (Attachment 2).

l i The information gathered from the Agreement States in response to l the questions is being compiled and reviewed. Staff will make this information available to the States prior to the Workshop j and will ask that they provide any additional comments or i information by April 1, 1994. After the States have an i opportunity to review the information, OSP and MMSS will prepare l an analysis and forward it to the commission along with an j analysis of whether additional NRC initiatives are needed to j assure adequate and timely remediation of contaminated sites in

! Agreement States. While a more definitive response to the i commission's questions, as well as additional information on

! Agreement State SDMP efforts, will be available after the Workshop, telephone conversations with each of the 29 Agreement States enabled us to elicit some preliminary data.

I i

l

Contact:

T. Combs, OSP 5M-2357 g ATTACHMENT C 0? _ _ _.

The Commissioners 2 ,

e Four States indicated they currently have some type of .

SDMP program (Arizont., Illinois, Kansas and New Hampshire).

e Generally, States are using some NRC cleanup criteria in determining releasability of licensed sites. NRC criteria include:

e "NRC Action Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup of SDMP Sites;"

• Regulatory Guide 1.86, " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors;" l e Regulatory Guide 3.65, " Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Plans for Licensees )

under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70;" l e 1981 Branch Technical Position, " Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes From Past Operations;"

e NUREG-0586, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities;"

• NUREG/CR-5512, " Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning;"

e NUREG/CR-5517, " IMPACTS-BRC, Version 2.0;"

• NUREG/CR-5849, " Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination;" and e ALARA.

e Seven States (Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Texas) have developed their own cleanup criteria which we believe to be similar to NRC criteria.

e Seventeen States have sites they believe would qualify for inclusion in NRC's SDMP.

• All but five States (Colorado,-Florida, Maine, Nebraska and Rhode Island) have or are developing some criteria for the unrestricted release of NORM contaminated sites, o Five States indicated they have released sites for "other than unrestricted use" with some type of deed or zoning restrictions.

l The Commissioners 3 e Ten States said that they have not released sites for "other than unrestricted use" but may consider it in the future.

The responses from the 24 Agreement States which have or are developing criteria for NORM contaminated sites, ranged from having State specific regulations to using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency criteria or criteria drafted by the council of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD). It would appear that the State of Louisiana has taken the lead by developing criteria for cleanup in the oil fields.

Attachment 3 is a copy of the Agenda for the SDKP Workshop. l

/ .

'Lmes M.

Mylor I xecutive Director for Operations l

l Attachments:

i As stated cc: SECY

, OGC OPA OCA

4 l FOLIDW-UP QUESTIONS FOR AGREDENT STATES l

l l j 1. What are the criteria used in your State to determina j when radiologically contaminated soil or volumetrically i

contaminated material can be released for unrestricted j use?

i

2. Do you perform modeling prior to releasing sites for unrestricted use? If so, which models are used?

l 3. Do you allow sites to be released for other than l unrestricted use? If so, what type of continuing

controls do you allow? Do you have a program to keep l track of these sites?

4. Do you have a policy on finality of decommissioning l actions? (If a site has been cleaned up per an 4

approved plan or method and all requirements concerning i the closure of the site are achieved, do you have a i policy on future liability or additional actions that may be imposed on the licensee?)

5. Do you or have you ever evaluated sites that have been released in the past?

6. Do you have a standard set of procedures / criteria /

methods for conducting termination surveys of sites?

Do you perform confirmatory surveys of sites after licensees have stated that the sites meet the release criteria?

7. Do you retain terminated license files indefinately?

If not, for what period of time are terminated license files retained?

8. Do you currently permit inactive contaminated sites to remain under licanaea control without requiring the licensee to initiate site characterization and remediation efforts?

9. Do you have unrestricted release criteria for NORM?

ATTACHMENT 1

i  ;

1 j .' Office of State Programs I

l-Questions on Contaminated Sites

! (

Introduction  !'

i i i I The Comission has requested an update on the Site Decommissioning Management  !

plan (SDMP). The briefing will likely occur in late October or November 1993.

As part of the presentation, the Chairman specifically requested information I about what the Agreement States are doing in this area and the number of sites

in the Agreement States.

j In order for the Office of State Programs to present

, information to the Commission, we are requesting the Agreement States to 4 t provide the following information to us no later than October 15, 1993. l I  !

Currently a General Accounting Office (GAD) audit of the regulation of i

contaminated sites is also be'ng conducted. It is expected that a Congressional hearing on this subject may be held after January 1,1994. The l

information requested will likely be needed to respond to the GA0 report and prepare for the hearing.

i Information Needs Does your State have a specific program for management of problem contaminated i sites? If the answer is yes, please provide a copy of the document describing l your program, if documented, or a written sumary of your program.

j i

What criteria are used by the State to determine if a site can be released for unrestricte' use? Please provide a copy of the guidance if different from i

! , NRC's. See the NRC's SDNP Action Plan, attached, for NRC's unrestricted I

release criteria.  !

1 j

i Please provide a list of the contaminated sites (those covered under your i

( Agreement and meeting the criteria used by NRC to put sites on its SDMP list).

A copy of NRC's criteria is attached. Note that a problem contaminated site

{ may be one that is currently conducting operations or it may be one where

! l operations have ceased irrespective of whether the license is in effect or has i l been terminated. In this response, please indicate whether you have reviewed l

}

i the files of previously terminated licenses to determine if the licenses were  ;

terminated using release criteria less stringent than those used today, without independent confirmatory surveys, or using survey procedures that are i unacceptable by today's standards. If no terminated license file reviews have j been conducted, indicate whether any are planned.

i

Please provide a brief description of each site. A format for this information is attached along with examples from NRC's 50MP documentation.

The compliance / enforcement history of tae sites and a description of the public j documen/ political / media interest in the site should be included in the 4

tation for each site.

l I i J

ATTACHMENT 2 I, ,

1 k

(.

3 l

l-l AGREMEIrf STATE SITE D300008288105I50 j MENESEMENT PROGRAM WORESEOF l

March 23, 1994

6

00am -

Breakfast k 7:30am -

Check Za j S200am -

Welease and Opening Remarks Richard L. Sangart, Director j Office of State Programs

8

15am -

What is the SDetr and Why Did ERC Develop It?

John H. Austin, Chief Decommissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch (LLDR)

{

l Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning (LLWM) i Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)

! 9:15am -

Identifying Fotential Sites

) Paul Goldberg j operations Branch j Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, MMSS 9:30am -

Break i

9:45am -

Contaminated Site Experieases 4

e MRC Region I

! e NRC Region III l

j e State of Illinois

Steven Collins, Chief i

Division of Radioactive Materials aacompanied by Marjorie Walle I

d 11:15am -

The Need for an Agreement State SDIEP Program Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials safety, safeguards and Operational Support i 11:45am -

Question and haswar Session 1

4 2 12:00n -

Lunch i

1 ATTACHMENT 3

+ -

ACTION ,Bancart. SP/

j .; Bernero, NhSS

/,g 4

e 4'g,

• UNITED STATES Cys: Taylor NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Snfezek .

! 5 I wasuncios, o.c. mes Thompson i t IN RESPONSE, PLEASE B1aha

% , , , , ***/

j November 18, 1993 REFER TO: M931108A Beckjor i OFFICE OF THE j SECRETARY

! MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor l Executive Director for ations FRON:

l Samuel J. Chilk, Secret l SUILTECT:

! STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BR3E1lING ON SITE j

DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEN1brf PLAN (SECY-93-179), 9:30 A.M., MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, {'

t 1993, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE j

WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCXVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN i

TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

The Commission was briefed by the NRC staff on the Site j Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) and Agreement State j

actions on similar sites. ,

i The issue of averaging contamination survey results to determine  ;

}

' that acceptable levels are not exceeded after remediating a site was discussed. The Commission noted the connection with the i

enhanced participatory rulemaking and the high level of i sensitivity to this question and recommended that the staff j

j obtain as much public input as is practical. The final position developed by the staff should consider the public input as well 1

3' as that from the States.

i i

The Commission requested more definitive information from the staff on the criteria the Agreement States are using for release i of contaminated sites (including sites contaminated with i

naturally-occurring radioactive material) and the types of i

approaches they are allowing in terms of restricted use or

{ perpetual care.

fEDO) (SP/NMSS) (SECY Suspense:

' 2/25/94) 9300197 i

cc: The Chairman j Commissioner Rogers i

commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque bj

! OGC OCA ,.;

! OIG ~

Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR - Advance --

4 DCS - P1-24 ~

A

\f*