[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8814-8816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2832]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Financial Assistance (Grants) To Support Agreement States in 
Closing Sites Formerly Licensed by the NRC

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the 
availability of financial assistance to support Agreement States in 
closing outstanding sites formerly licensed by the NRC. The assistance 
is being made available through a grant program. Eligible Agreement 
States that desire funding assistance should submit a written grant 
proposal to NRC for review and approval.
    Agreement State grant proposals for file reviews and/or for conduct 
of initial site surveys should be submitted within 60-90 days of the 
publication of this announcement. Proposals for site characterization, 
if needed, should be submitted as soon as possible after completion of 
file reviews and/or initial surveys. Similarly, proposals for site 
remediation, if needed, should be submitted as soon as possible after 
completion of site characterization. Proposals that are not submitted 
in time for consideration under FY 2001 funds will be considered for FY 
2002 funding.

ADDRESSES: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Grants Officer, 
Division of Contracts and Property Management, Office of 
Administration, Mail Stop T-7-I-2, Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Brown, 301-415-6507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The NRC has been reviewing files for previously terminated licenses 
to determine whether there was appropriate documentation in the files 
that the sites were decommissioned prior to termination of the license 
and release of the site. A number of files have been identified for 
which there is insufficient documentation about site decommissioning or 
sealed source disposition.
    Radioactive material remaining at a site located within an 
Agreement State, including material originally licensed by the NRC or 
its predecessor, is the regulatory responsibility of the Agreement 
State under its agreement with NRC. Therefore, an Agreement State has 
regulatory jurisdiction for conducting license file reviews and initial 
site surveys of formerly NRC licensed sites, including sites with 
insufficient documentation to account for sealed sources. An Agreement 
State also has regulatory jurisdiction for remediation of any sites 
identified as being contaminated.
    Under section 274.i of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
the NRC is supporting Agreement States through providing funds for the 
purpose of reviewing files, conducting surveys, characterizing, and 
remediating sites formerly licensed by the NRC.
    On May 24, 1999 (64 FR 28014), the NRC published a notice in the 
Federal Register (FR) that requested stakeholders' comment on the 
proposed grant program for Agreement States for formerly NRC licensed 
sites. The basis for the FY 2001-2002 cost estimates for formerly NRC 
licensed sites is set out in a Commission Paper-SECY-99-193, entitled 
``Cost Estimates for Completion of Formerly Terminated NRC Licensed 
Sites Program.'' In that paper, a total of 11 Agreement States were 
identified that could need funding assistance to close out formerly NRC 
licensed sites in their States. (SECY-99-193 is available on the NRC 
homepage at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/SECYS/secy1999-193/1999-193scy.html.)
    During the past year, the NRC staff determined that three of the 11 
Agreement States, identified in SECY-99-193, have taken action to close 
out the formerly NRC licensed sites in their States after file review/
investigation. The following eight Agreement States with remaining 
formerly NRC licensed sites are eligible to submit grant proposals for 
funding assistance: Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, New York and Texas.
    On October 2, 2000, during the annual Organization of Agreement 
State Meeting, the NRC staff presented information on the grant program 
to provide Agreement State staff an opportunity to discuss the process 
and procedure that will be used to administer the program. Copies of 
the draft grant proposal for file review and/or initial survey, and the 
draft procedure were distributed at that meeting.
    The grant program will be administered to ensure a proper, fair, 
and equitable use of available funds to assist Agreement States with 
remaining formerly NRC licensed sites to complete necessary file 
reviews and surveys; site characterization; and remediation, if 
necessary. The program will include a risk-ranking of the sites to 
ensure that funds are available for the ``high-risk'' sites in the 
event that the appropriated funds are less than requested or prove to 
be insufficient to fully remediate remaining identified sites. The FY 
2001 funding appropriation is $1,650,000.00. The FY 2002 proposed 
ceiling is $1,650,000.00 pending availability of the funds.
    The grant program is organized into four different kinds of 
proposals for funding assistance:
    (1) Proposal for file review and/or initial survey;
    (2) Proposal for regulatory oversight for site characterization 
and/or remediation;
    (3) Proposal for site characterization; and
    (4) Proposal for site remediation.
    Each State that desires funding assistance should submit a written 
grant proposal to the Attention of: Grants Officer, Division of 
Contracts and Property Management, Office of Administration, Mail Stop 
T-7-I-2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
    An STP procedure (SA-1000), entitled ``Implementation of the Grant 
Program for Funding Assistance for

[[Page 8815]]

Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States'', with a sample proposal 
for file review and/or initial survey is available on the NRC homepage 
at http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/procedures/sa1000.pdf.
    Each proposal should contain basic information including project 
goals and objectives, project management, period of the project, 
project total cost, and anticipated results. In addition, the proposal 
should include the following information depending on the type of 
proposal being submitted:
    (1) Proposal for File Review and/or Initial Survey (A sample 
proposal can be found in the STP Procedure SA-1000).
    a. A brief description of each file to be reviewed;
    b. The number of loose material and/or sealed source files to be 
reviewed;
    c. Estimated work hours by major activity for each file (including 
review of records and documents, travel, interviews, survey and 
sampling, etc.);
    d. Estimated hourly rate of the person(s) conducting the reviews 
and/or initial surveys;
    e. Estimated cost for file review and/or initial survey (using data 
from items c and d);
    f. Estimated worker benefit cost;
    g. Estimated travel and Per Diem cost;
    h. Estimated supplies and service cost;
    i. Estimated total direct cost (using data from items e to h);
    j. Estimated total indirect cost;
    k. Estimated total cost (items i plus j);
    l. Estimated laboratory analysis and service costs, if any;
    m. Estimated grand total cost (items k plus l); and
    n. Any supporting information that will strengthen the proposal.
    (2) Proposal for Regulatory Oversight for Site Characterization 
and/or Remediation.
    a. A brief description of each site that needs regulatory oversight 
for site characterization and/or remediation;
    b. The number of sites that need regulatory oversight for site 
characterization and/or remediation;
    c. Estimated work hours by major activity for each site (including 
review of records and documents, travel, administration record keeping 
and correspondence, etc.);
    d. Estimated hourly rate of the person(s) conducting the oversight;
    e. Estimated cost for sites that need regulatory oversight (using 
data from items c and d);
    f. Estimated worker benefit cost;
    g. Estimated travel and Per Diem cost;
    h. Estimated supplies and service cost;
    i. Estimated total direct cost (using data from items e to h);
    j. Estimated total indirect cost;
    k. Estimated total cost (items i plus j);
    l. Estimated laboratory analysis and service costs, if any;
    m. Estimated grand total cost (items k plus l); and
    n. Any supporting information that will strengthen the proposal.
    (3) Proposal for Site Characterization.
    Note that Agreement States should complete all file reviews and/or 
initial surveys before submitting their site characterization proposal 
to NRC, and each proposal should deal with only one specific site.
    a. A brief description of the site characterization plan;
    b. Estimated work hours by major activity for the site including 
regulatory oversight and actual site characterization work;
    c. Estimated hourly rate of the person(s) conducting the activity 
including regulatory oversight and actual site characterization work;
    d. Estimated cost (using data from items b and c);
    e. Estimated worker benefit cost;
    f. Estimated travel and Per Diem cost;
    g. Estimated supplies and service cost;
    h. Estimated total direct cost (using data from d to g);
    i. Estimated total indirect cost;
    j. Estimated total cost (items h plus i);
    k. Estimated laboratory analysis and service costs, if any;
    l. Estimated grand total cost (items j plus k);
    m. Documentation that none of the following three conditions exist:
    (1) the current site owner is financially capable for site 
characterization;
    (2) the original licensee is still in existence and financially 
capable; or
    (3) the site qualifies for the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) funding assistance; 
and
    n. Any supporting information that will strengthen the proposal.
    (4) Proposal for Site Remediation.
    Note that each proposal deals with only one specific site.
    a. A brief description of site cleanup plan;
    b. Estimated work hours by major activity for the site including 
regulatory oversight and actual site remediation work;
    c. Estimated hourly rate of the person(s) conducting the activity 
including regulatory oversight and actual site remediation work;
    d. Estimated cost (using data from items b and c);
    e. Estimated worker benefit cost;
    f. Estimated travel and Per Diem cost;
    g. Estimated supplies and service cost;
    h. Estimated total direct cost (using data from items d to g);
    i. Estimated total indirect cost;
    j. Estimated total cost (items h plus i);
    k. Estimated laboratory analysis and service costs, if any;
    l. Estimated grand total cost (items j plus k) including regulatory 
oversight and actual remediation work;
    m. An estimate of the residence or worker population, if any, 
within the contaminated area(s);
    o. Accessibility of the contaminated site to the public;
    p. Average gamma surface dose rate of the contaminated areas;
    q. An estimate of the contaminated areas;
    r. An estimate of the total volume of waste;
    s. An estimate of the percentage of contaminated area where the 
level of removable contamination exceeds permissible regulatory limits;
    t. Any economic impact of not cleaning up the site immediately;
    u. The funding needed for each year and the amount of time needed 
to complete site cleanup activities;
    v. Plans for disposal of waste and availability of the waste 
disposal site;
    w. A statement or conclusion (and supporting basis) that the 
contaminated site could result in doses that exceed the 25 millirem/
year public dose limit;
    x. Documentation that none of the following three conditions exist:
    (1) The current site owner is financially capable of conducting the 
site remediation;
    (2) The original licensee is still in existence and financially 
capable; or
    (3) The site qualifies for CERCLA funding assistance;
    y. Any considerations that would warrant that this site needs to be 
remediated in a short period of time; and
    z. Any supporting information that will strengthen the proposal.

Evaluation Process

    All proposals received as a result of this announcement will be 
evaluated by NRC staff.

Evaluation Criteria

    The common evaluation criteria for each proposal are as follows:
    1. Clarity of statement of project objectives, management and 
anticipated results;
    2. The completeness of the cost estimate;
    3. The level of supporting detail presented; and
    4. The reasonableness of the cost estimate (i.e., the accuracy and

[[Page 8816]]

magnitude of estimated costs) in relation to the work to be performed 
and anticipated results.
    Additional evaluation criteria for site characterization proposal:
    The funding will not be granted to a site if any of the following 
conditions exist:
    a. The current site owner is financially capable for site 
characterization.
    b. The original licensee is still in existence and financially 
capable.
    c. The site qualifies for CERCLA funding assistance.
    Additional evaluation criteria for site remediation proposal:
    a. The funding will not be granted to a site if any of the 
following conditions exist:
    i. The current site owner is financially capable for site 
remediation.
    ii. The original licensee is still in existence and financially 
capable.
    iii. The site qualifies for CERCLA funding assistance.
    iv. Site remediation is proposed for compliance with a more 
conservative criterion than 25 millirem/year.
    b. If necessary, the NRC staff will evaluate and approve the grants 
based on a risk-ranking for each site. Information on the approach for 
risk ranking contaminated formerly NRC licensed sites will be provided 
at a later date, if necessary.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of January, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Paul H. Lohaus,
Director, Office of State and Tribal Programs.
[FR Doc. 01-2832 Filed 2-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P