STP Procedure Approval

Implementation of the Grant Program 

for Funding Assistance for 

Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

SA-1000

Issue Date: October 29, 2002

Review Date: October 29, 2004

Paul H. Lohaus Original signed by:

Director, STP Paul H. Lohaus Date: 10/29/02

Josephine M. Piccone Original signed by:

Deputy Director, STP Josephine M. Piccone Date: 10/28/02

Kevin Hsueh Original signed by:

Procedure Contact, STP Kevin Hsueh Date: 10/28/02

NOTE

The STP Director’s Secretary is responsible for the maintenance of this master copy document

as part of the STP Procedure Manual. Any changes to the procedure will be the responsibility of

the STP Procedure Contact. Copies of STP procedures will be distributed for information.
Procedure Title: Implementation of the Grant Program

 for Funding Assistance for Formerly

 Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Procedure Number: SA-1000

Page: 1 of 11

Issue Date: 

10/29/02

I. INTRODUCTION

A. This document describes the procedures for conducting the Grants Program

including processing applications, conducting technical and budget evaluation and

executing financial assistance action.

B. The program will be administered in conformance with the Federal Grant and

Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, and related guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, 

SECY 99-193, and the SRM for SECY 99-193.

C. The responsibility for conducting the Grants Program, is shared by the Office of

State and Tribal Programs (STP) and the Division of Contracts and Property

Management (DCPM), Office of Administration, as stated in NRC Management

Directive (MD) 11.6.

II. OBJECTIVES

A. To provide the guidelines that will be followed by Agreement States when

preparing grant proposals for NRC review.

B. To provide guidelines to STP and DCPM for administration and coordination of

Grants Program.

III. BACKGROUND

 Pursuant to Section 274.i of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the NRC’s STP

will assist Agreement States through providing funds for the purpose of reviewing files,

conducting surveys, characterizing and remediating sites formerly licensed by the

Commission.

The grant program will be administered to ensure a proper, fair, and equitable use of

available funds to assist Agreement States with remaining formerly licensed sites to

complete necessary file reviews and surveys; site characterization; and remediation, if

necessary. Eligible Agreement States that desire funding assistance shall submit a written

grant proposal to NRC for review and approval. The program will include procedures to

conduct 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. Additional information on the risk ranking

system will be provided at a later date, if necessary.
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 2 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

IV. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. Office of the General Counsel (OGC):

Review all applications regarding the suitability of using an assistance instrument

and the potential for conflicts of interest.

B. Director, STP:

1. Serves as the recommending official to the Executive Director for

Operations for program areas funded by the office;

2. Ensures review of applications regarding the appropriateness of technical

assistance funding and the potential for conflicts of interest.

C. Director, DCPM:

1. As the agent for the NRC, performs detailed financial and business

analysis, executes the assistance instruments, and ensures the assistance

document is managed after award in coordination with STP;

2. Ensures the official record file relative to all actions funded through NRC

financial assistance instruments is maintained;

3. Ensures closeout and deobligation of funds upon completion of the project

provided financial assistance.

D. Project Manager for Grants Program Coordination, STP:

Acts as the STP lead staff for the day-to-day management of Grant Program,

including technical review of grant proposals for completeness and reasonableness

of the cost estimate, tracking the status of grant proposals, maintaining statistical

information on the proposals, interfacing with DCPM and OGC for interactions

regarding the Grant Program.

E. Grants Officer, DCPM:

Acts as the DCPM lead staff for the day-to-day management of Grants Program to

ensure the processing, award, and administration of all financial assistance

actions.
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 3 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

V. GUIDANCE

A. Agreement State Grant Proposal

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 shall 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

A sample grant proposal for file review and/or initial survey is shown in

Appendix A. 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. 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;
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 4 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

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. 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;
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 5 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

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 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); 

m. documentation that none of the following three conditions exist: 
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 6 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

(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 site remediation work; 

m. an estimate of the residence or worker population, if any, within

the contaminated area(s);
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 7 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

n. accessibility of the contaminated site to the public;

o. average gamma surface dose rate of the contaminated areas;

p. an estimate of the contaminated areas;

q. an estimate of the total volume of waste;

r. an estimate of percentage of contaminated area where the level of 

removable contamination exceeds permissible regulatory limits; 

s. any economic impact of not cleaning up the site immediately;

t. the funding needed for each year and the amount of time needed to

complete site cleanup activities;

u. plans for disposal of waste and availability of the waste disposal

site; 

v. a statement or conclusion (and supporting basis) that the

contaminated site could result in doses that exceed the 25

millirem/year public dose limit;

w. 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;

x. any considerations that would warrant that this site needs to be

remediated in a short period of time; and

y. any supporting information that will strengthen the proposal.

B. Processing Applications

1. Receipt of Applications

a. Agreement State applications for funding assistance shall be

submitted to the DCPM, Office of Administration. DCPM will

acknowledge receipt of all applications.
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 8 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

b. DCPM will date-stamp and enter applications in an application

receipt log. This log shall contain at least the following

information:

i. Name and address of Agreement State applicant;

ii. Announcement for which the application was submitted;

iii. Date and time of receipt;

iv. Control number assigned;

v. Award instrument number (if award is made);

vi. Disposition of application.

c. Upon receipt of an application, DCPM will inform OGC and STP,

and review participants from DCPM, OGC and STP will meet to

review the proposal and establish the review schedule. 

2. Review of Grant Proposal

Each grant proposal will be reviewed against the following criteria by the

review participants from DCPM, OGC and STP:

a. The common evaluation criteria for each proposal are as follows:

i. Clarity of statement of project objectives, management and

anticipated results;

ii. The completeness of the cost estimate;

iii. The level of supporting detail presented; and

iv. The reasonableness of the cost estimate (i.e., the accuracy

and magnitude of estimated costs) in relation to the work to

be performed and anticipated results.

b. Additional evaluation criteria for site characterization proposal:

The funding will not be granted to a site if any of the following

conditions exist.
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 9 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

i. The current site owner is financially capable for site

characterization.

ii. The original licensee is still in existence and financially

capable.

iii. The site qualifies for CERCLA funding assistance.

c. Additional evaluation criteria for site remediation proposal:

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. 

3. Award Process

a. Following office staff review, the STP project manager will

provide recommendations to the STP director, OGC and DCPM

for concurrence.

b. The STP director will appraise technical merit and budget

considerations.

c. OGC will appraise whether the subject matter of an application is

appropriate for financial assistance to ensure compliance with the

Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act.

d. DCPM will ensure performance of the preaward cost analysis and

will make the final determination that costs proposed are fair and

reasonable. 
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 10 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

e. DCPM will notify prospective awardees of their selection by

receipt of an award document or by a letter. 

C. Execution of Financial Assistance Action

1. The grant for Agreement States is funded on a cost reimbursement basis

not to exceed the amount awarded as indicated on the award document and

is subject to a refund of unexpended funds to NRC.

2. Award recipients are responsible for the performance under grants and

other agreements and, ensure that time schedules are being met, projected

work units by time periods are being accomplished, and other performance

goals are being achieved.

3. Status reports shall be submitted in letter format at a frequency as

specified in the award document and a final report shall be submitted no

later than the expiration date of the award period. The content of the

status report shall be as follows:

a. A comparison of actual accomplishments with the goals

established for the period, the findings of the project, or both. 

b. Other pertinent information including, when appropriate, analysis

and explanation of anticipated high unit costs.

c. Between the required status reporting dates, events may occur that

have significant impact on the project. In such instances, the

recipient shall inform the NRC as soon as the following types of

conditions become known:

i. Problems, delays, or adverse conditions

that will materially affect the ability to attain

project objectives, prevent the meeting of

time schedules and goals.

ii. Favorable developments or events that

enable time schedules to be met sooner

than anticipated or more work units to be

produced than originally projected.
SA-1000: Implementation of the Grants Program for Funding Assistance

 for Formerly Licensed Sites in Agreement States

Page: 11 of 11

Issue Date:

10/29/02

iii. If any performance review conducted by the

recipient discloses the need for change in the

budget estimates, the recipient shall submit a

request for budget revision.

4. Grant vouchers should contain total cost and cost breakdowns for the

following items that are applicable to a grant project. 

a. Labor cost

b. Travel cost

c. Per diem cost

d. Lab cost

e. Supply and service cost (if applicable)

f. Overhead cost (if applicable)

g. Others (if applicable)

D. Evaluation of Agreement State Technical Activities Conducted Under

A Grant

1. NRC reviews Agreement State radiation control programs in an integrated

manner, using common and non-common performance indicators as

specified in MD 5.6., Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation

Program (IMPEP).

2. Agreement State activities, such as licensing actions, implemented through

the Grant Program are candidates for review during IMPEP reviews. The

guidance given in STP Procedure SA 104, Reviewing Common

Performance Indicator #4, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, should

be used.

VI. APPENDICES

Appendix A - Sample grant proposal for file review and initial survey.

VII. REFERENCES

1. NRC Management Directive 11.6, Financial Assistance Program. 

2. NRC Management Directive 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation

Program.

3. SA 104, Reviewing Common Performance Indicator #4, Technical Quality of

Licensing Actions.
Appendix A

SAMPLE GRANT PROPOSAL FOR FILE REVIEW 

AND/OR INITIAL SURVEY

Mr./Ms. (Name)

Grants Officer

Division of Contracts and Property Management

Office of Administration

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Mr./Ms.(Name):

Enclosed is [STATE]’s grant proposal for [file review and initial survey] of [four] formerly

licensed sites. The proposal includes the following information:

Enclosure 1. Project description

Enclosure 2. A summary of the pending files which consists of [two] sealed source files and

[two] loose material files.

Enclosure 3. Estimated cost for file review and/or initial survey.

Enclosure 4. A copy of summary of files with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) score.

This summary was sent to us from NRC Region [I, II, III or IV] office.

It was estimated that a total of [$12,889] will be needed to complete file reviews and initial

surveys of these [four] formerly NRC licensed sites.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (telephone number) or (name of State

contract) of my staff at (telephone number) or (e-mail address).

Sincerely,

(Name of Radiation Control Program Director or designee),

(Director or title of designee), (Radiation Control Program)

Enclosures:

As stated

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Project Goals and Objectives

The project’s goals and objectives should be clearly stated in the proposal.

Example:

Review NRC license files to determine the scope of previous work including the list of

radionuclides, processes, potential for off-site release of radioactive contamination, and current

status. As part of the review, [State name] files will be researched to determine if the State of

[State name] granted a radioactive materials license to the company or address

Determine whether a site visit is required to resolve any of the concerns identified during the

review. Coordinate site visits with the former licensee (if possible), and the current site owner

before the visit. Site visits to sealed source sites will normally be to perform surveys. No sample

analyses are expected to be performed at sealed source sites.

Survey and/or sample the site for residual contamination or other radioactive material associated

with the previous licensed activities, if necessary, to verify the status of the site. Determine

whether remedial actions are required to remove radioactive materials in excess of the regulatory

limits pertaining to decommissioning of sites. Determine which files can be closed and which

sites require characterization or remediation activities. Make every attempt to close out files

when data are available to support such action. This assessment will include a review of the

available historical data and the current radiological status.

Write a summary report for each site to document the State’s assessments and findings.

2. Project Management

The proposal should identify the project manager or individual responsible for direct 

(day-to-day ) management of the project.

Example:

The project manager is [name], [title], the individual responsible for direct (day-to-day)

management of the project is [name], [title].

Enclosure 1
3. Period of the Project

The proposal should identify the project starting and stop dates.

Example:

The project will start within 30 days of the award of the grant, or at such other time as specified

in the grant award notice, and be completed within six months of the start date. 

4. Project Anticipated Results

The anticipated results after completion of the project should be clearly stated in the proposal.

Example:

An assessment and findings report will be generated. The anticipated results after completion of

the project are an assessment of whether further actions are necessary or if the State can close the

file. The final report will include the State’s assessments and findings for each file reviewed. 

This will include a finding as to whether the file should be open for further actions, such as site

characterization/remediation, or the file should be closed and no further action is required. The

basis for closing a file will be stated such as a finding that no unlicensed, abandoned sources, or

residual radioactive material where the level of contamination exceeds permissible regulatory

limits exist at the subject site(s). The decision criterion will also be provided such as state

requirements or standards to be applied.

A status report will be provided within three months from the award date of the grant. A final

report will be submitted within 30 days from the expiration date of the grant.

5. Total Cost of the Project

The proposal should identify the total cost for the completion of the project.
SUMMARY OF FORMERLY LICENSED SITES THAT NEED FILE REVIEW AND/OR

INITIAL SURVEY

(1) Sealed Source (2 files)

No. License No.

1 xxx-xxxxx

2 xx-xxxxx-xx

(2) Loose Material (2 files)

No. License No.

1 xxx-xxxxx

2 xx-xxxxx-xx

Enclosure 2
ESTIMATED COST FOR FILE REVIEW AND/OR INITIAL SURVEY

Step 1: Estimate work hours by major activity for each file

Sealed Source File #1

Activity Time (hours)

Interviews

Travel

Review records & documents

Survey & sampling

Sample transfer & laboratory delivery

Data evaluation & writing report

Administration record keeping & correspondence

Other (specify)

Total

Sealed Source File #2

Activity Time (hours)

Interviews

Travel

Review records & documents

Survey & sampling

Sample transfer & laboratory delivery

Data evaluation & writing report

Administration record keeping & correspondence

Other (specify)

Total

Enclosure 3
 Loose Material File #1

Activity Time (hours)

Interviews

Travel

Review records & documents

Survey & sampling

Sample transfer & lab delivery

Data evaluation & writing report

Administration record keeping & correspondence

Other (specify)

Total

Loose Material File #2

Activity Time (hours)

Interviews

Travel

Review records & documents

Survey & sampling

Sample transfer & lab delivery

Data evaluation & writing report

Administration record keeping & correspondence

Other (specify)

Total
Step 2:Enter the total work hours reported in step 1 for each file into the appropriate cells

below, and add them to obtain a total.

 File Total time (Hours)

Sealed Source File #1

Sealed Source File #2

Loose Material File #1

Loose Material File #2

Total Hours

Step 3:List the average hourly rate for person(s) conducting file review and/or initial

survey 

Average hourly rate = $

Step 4:Multiply the average hourly rate by total hour reported in step 2 to determine the

cost.

$ x (hours) = $ 

Step 5:Determine worker benefit cost

Percentage of worker benefit = %

$ (total cost from Step 4) x % = $

Step 6:Estimate Travel and Per Diem cost

Sealed Source Site #1 $

Sealed Source Site #2 $

Loose Material Site #1 $

Loose Material Site #2 $

Total $
Step 7:Estimate supplies and service cost 

List of supplies and service Cost

Supply item #1 $

Supply item #2 $

Service item #1 $

Service item #2 $

Total $

Step 8: Estimate total direct cost

Items Cost

Cost (Step 4) $

Worker benefit cost (Step 5) $

Travel and per diem cost (Step 6) $

Supply and service cost (Step 7) $

Total $

Step 9:Estimate total indirect cost

Percentage of indirect cost = %

$ (total cost from Step 8) x % = $

Step 10: Direct plus indirect cost

$ (direct cost ) + $ (indirect cost) = $
Step 11: Estimate laboratory analysis and service costs

(1) Gamma analysis for sealed source site #1

Type of

sample

Projected

sample

quantity/site

Cost per sample Cost for each

type of sample

Soil $ $

water $ $

wipes $ $

Gamma analysis cost for sealed source #1 $

(2) Gamma analysis for sealed source site #2

Type of

sample

Projected

sample

quantity/site

Cost per sample Cost for each

type of sample

Soil $ $

water $ $

wipes $ $

Gamma analysis cost for sealed source #2 $

(3) alpha-spectrum analysis for loose material site #1

Type of

sample

Projected

sample

quantity/site

Cost per sample Cost for each

type of sample

Soil $ $

water $ $

wipes $ $

Alpha-spectrum analysis cost for loose material #1 $
(4) Alpha-spectrum analysis cost for loose material #2

Type of

sample

Projected

sample

quantity/site

Cost per sample Cost for each

type of sample

Soil $ $

water $ $

wipes $ $

Alpha-spectrum analysis cost for loose material #2 $

(5) Total laboratory analysis and service cost

Item laboratory analysis and service cost

Sealed source site #1 $

Sealed source site #2 $

Loose material site #1 $

Loose material site #2 $

Total laboratory and analysis cost $

Step 12: Determine the estimated grand total cost

$ (from Step 10) +$ (from Step 11) = $
FORMER AEC/NRC TERMINATED LICENSES LOCATED IN THE STATE OF 

(STATE NAME) (This can be found in Files Transferred from NRC Region Offices)

STATUS SCORE SEALED SOURCE OPERATION FILE AVAILABLE

Open xx (Yes) (Well Logging) (Yes/No)

(Company Name) CITY: YYY Terminated: mm/yy

LICENSE: xxx-xxxxx DOCKET: xx-xxxxx

ORNL COMMENTS: Pu-Be sources. No source disposition, close-out surveys or final AEC

inspection conducted

 __________________________________________________

Open xx (Yes) (Radiography) (Yes/No)

(Company Name) CITY: YYY Terminated: mm/yy

LICENSE: xxx-xxxxx DOCKET: xx-xxxxx

ORNL COMMENTS: Ir-192, Co-60. No source disposition given, final close-out survey or AEC

inspection conducted.

 __________________________________________________

Open xx (No) (Cobalt 60 encapsulation) (Yes/No)

(Company Name) CITY: YYY Terminated: mm/yy

LICENSE: xxx-xxxxx DOCKET: xx-xxxxx

ORNL COMMENTS: Authorized up to 10 Curies of loose Co-60. No source disposition given,

final close-out survey or AEC inspection conducted.

 __________________________________________________

Open xx (No) (Airplane

Manuf.)

(Yes/No)

(Company Name) CITY: YYY Terminated: mm/yy

LICENSE: xxx-xxxxx DOCKET: xx-xxxxx

ORNL COMMENTS: Mag-thor alloy use. No source disposition given, final close-out survey

or AEC inspection conducted. 

Enclosure 4