ML19318E967
| ML19318E967 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/04/1988 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808120351 | |
| Download: ML19318E967 (10) | |
Text
.-
~
AUG 4 1938.
'MEMORANDUM F0P.:.Donald A. Nussbaumer-Assistant Director for
'l State Agreements Program
,3 State, local'and Indian'Tribe Programs
]
FROM:
Malcolm R. Knapp, Director
'j Division of Low-Level-Waste Management j
and Decommissioning,-NMSS'
SUBJECT:
LLWM.COMMENTS ON DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAMS WITH.LOW-LEVEL RADI0ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL RESPONSIBILITY
-)
We have completed our review of the draft policy statement and guidelines.
H transmitted to us by your memorandum of June 27, 1988. While our review has resulted in several comments as enclosed, we would like to observe that both-documents reflect a well conceived approach and a timely.effort. We have'three' general comments on the documents as follows:
1.
We suggest that a criterion for the program reviewer to use in making an l
assessment of the adequacy of program elements be included in the D.2-2 guidelines. While we recognize the need for flexibility in reviewing the programs of states, we nevertheless feel that minimum criteria could be-emplaced without'losing this flexibility.
2.
We note that the guidelines are not consistent in their treatment of activities related to, but not specifically a part of,-LLW disposal: 1.e.,
packaging and transportation of LLW. We suggest that in revising this document you consider whether these areas should be addressed in review of the overall RCP or the RWCP and take.a consistent approach in:these documents.
3.
Finally, we suggest that on pp. 5-6 of the Policy Statement where the 1
Category I & II indicators are listed, a correlation be made between each indicator and the appropriate RCP.element under which it_is considered..
This measure would improve the clarity of the document_and assure that all the indicators are covered in the program.elements.
l I
8808120351 880804 NMSS SUBJ "k..-
414.5 GDC F
M;h-
?!
t h
SL1rP REVIEW l
AUG 4 1938 l
1 1
Our detailed comments are contained on the attached pages, while minor or l
editorial comments are presented in an attached mark-up of-the documents. We appreciate the opportunity. to comment on these documents and look forward to working with you and your staff in their future development.
If you have questions regarding our review, please call George Pangburn of my staff at i
x20580.
MNED) MMN8 Malcolm'R. Knapp, Director.
Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, HMSS l
i
Enclosures:
- )
As noted i
(*Seeperviousconcurrence)
DISTRIBUTION:
Yellow Ticket # 88120
~CEntral Filc-NMSS rf LLOB rf-GPangburn, LLOB SBahadur, LLOB PLohaus, LLOB JSurmeier, LLTB MBell, LLRB JGreeves, LLWM MKnapp, LLWM CCantor, LLWM PDR OFC :*LLOB
- LLOB
- LLTB
- LLRB
- LLOB
- LL
- LLWM p...
NAME:GPangburn/dfw :SBahadur :JStarmer
- KDragonette-
- PLohaus:
- J e
DATE:07/20/88
- 07/20/88 :07/20/88
- 07/20/88
- 07/20/88
/'//88
- F /jf/88 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1
1
.I
i j
j a
1 o
1 MEMORANDUM FOR: Donald A. Nussbaumer Assistant Director for i
.State Agreements Program State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs j
2 FROM:
Malcolm.R. Knapp, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management' l
and Decommissioning, HMSS
]
SUBJECT:
LLWM COMMENTS ON DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES FOR.
REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAMS WITH'LOW-LEVEL.
RADI0ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL RESPONSIBILITY a
We have completed our.review of the draft policy statement,and.guidelines transmitted to us by your memorandum-of June 27, 1988. While our review has resulted in several comments as enclosed, we would like to obs'erve that both-documents reflect a well conceived approach.and a timely effort. We have two general comments on the documents as follows:
1.
We suggest that a criteria for the program reviewer to use in making an assessment of the adequacy of program elements be included in the D.2-2 guidelines. While we recognize the need for flexibility in'reviewing the programs of states, we nevertheless feel'that minimum criteria could be emplaced without losing this flexibility.
2.
We note that the guidelines are not consistent in their trc tment of activities related to, but not specifically a part of, ILW disposal: 1.e.,
packaging and transportation of LLW. We suggest that.in revising this f
document you consider whether these areas should be. addressed in review of the overall RCP or the RWCP and take.a consistent approach in these documents.
]
Our detailed comments are contained on the attached pages, while minor or editorial comments are presented in an attached mark-up of the.documents. We appreciate the opportuni.ty to comment on these documents and.look forward to working with you and your staff in their future development.
If you have questions regarding our review, please call George Pangburn of.my staff at x20580.
i i
Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, HMSS i
Enclosures As noted l
DISTRIBUTION:
Yellow Ticket # 88120 Central File HMSS rf LLOB rf GPangburn, LLOB SBahadur, LLOB PLohaus, LLOB JSurmeier, LLTB.
MBell, LLRB JGreeves, LLWM MKnapp, LLWM CCantor, LLWM PDR W
..n i
e OFL :LLOB y T'
- LLO
- LLIB g/ :LLRB
- LLO y
- LLWM
- LLWM j
_________ _ m __________________________
NAME:GPangburn fw :SBahadur :JStarmer
- KDr gonette
- PLohabs
- JGreeves
- MKnapp bATEffkbhbb f)hD)hb
)55)bb k)h)kb k)hbb
$ ) hbb
$ ) )bb 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY j
EL i
SLITP REVIEW LLWM COMMENTS ON ORAFT POLICY STATEMENT J
Page Locations Comment 8
Par. 6 The first line indicates that "States regulating the I
disposal of low-level radioactive waste should have statutes enacted to establish authority for such regulation." If legislation is the foundation for-the program, we believe that the word "should" should be replaced with "must."
i 12 Par. 6 The guideline on lab support for the RWCP should be expanded to include radiological as well as non-radiological analyses and should include environ-j mental media in addition to soils and engineering
- tests, i
13 Par. 4 The guideline recommending an overall project manager is not reflected in the D.2-2 guidelines for the reviewer.
13 Par. 7 The guideline recommending a separate document management system is not reflected in the D.2-2 guidelines for the reviewer.
13 Par. 8 The guideline recommending use of a financial management professional is not reflected in the D.2-2 guidelines for the reviewer.
16 Par. 5 The underlined addition on meeting regulatory guidance in licensing actions should be included in the D.2-2 guidelines for the reviewer.
21 Par. 9 The guideline on instrumentation for independent measurements should be made a part of the guidelines in the comparable section (VI.H).of 0.2-2.
.~
SLITP REVIEW LLWM COMMENTS ON DRAFT REVIEWER GUIDELINES (D.2-2)
Page Locations Comment 1(Intro) Para. 2 In the last sentence of this paragraph, it is stated that the implementation of applicable Part 61 requirements is complete in Washington and South Carolina.
To our.knowledge, no such finding has been made, and in its absence, we suggest that the last sentence be deleted.
2(Intro) Para. 2 Review objective should be restated in part to read
"... to determine if the State is regulating siting, licensing, construction, operation and closure of a commercial low-level waste disposal facility...."
2&3(Intro)Sect. III&IV Section III, A & B, indicates program areas to be reviewed in a developing and a licensing program, respectively. We consider that the program areas to be reviewed will differ according to phases of site lifetime [10 CFR 61.7 (c)] and that staff and contractor expertise will similarly differ over time.
We suggest that a table or matrix which lays out review components on one axis and phases of site life on another axis may be the best approach to assuring comprehensive reviews of the RWCP.
In addition,Section IV, A, identifies major program areas to be considered in each regularly scheduled review. There appears to be no need to identify program areas in Section IV, which is intended to address Scheduling.
1 I.B The fifth sentence in the Guidelines addresses the need for the RWCP to have authority to invoke civil-penalties. This sentence should be revised to include the other authorities which the RWCP should have.
Suggested revision: The RWCP should have the authority to promulgate regulations, issue licenses, conduct inspections and carry out enforcement (including civil and criminal penalties).
2 I.B The policy statement indicates that States "...must have regulations essentially identical to... Part 61 (technical definitions and requirements, performance objectives, financial assurances)...." The draft guidelines under I.B state that "the State must have
SLITP REVIEW I
Page Locations Comment regulations essentially identical to 10 CFR 61.2, 61.41, and,61.55. State regulations related to remaining performance:objectives, site'technical requirements, and financial assurances must be compatible with NRC regulations.". Please clarify this
'inconsistency.
2 I.B While the public's involvement in the development of LLW regulations is important, it is of greater concern for the reviewer to determine if provisions exist in those regulations for public participation in.
licensing reviews. We suggest that the.question be rephrased to reflect this concern.
a 3
II.A We believe that the separation of development from regulatory responsibilities within the State organization should receive greater emphasis,.perhaps by being separated out as a distinct review element.
5 II.D Question 5 under II.B. Internal Organization addresses various aspects of use of.contracts.
Section 11.0, Contract Administration, appears to address similar areas.
Is this assessment correct?
If so, we suggest that in the interestLof'efficiency these separate questions be combined.
6 III.A The questions on emergency planning overlook the l
communications aspect of the LLW emergency management plan. To correct this'oversight, we suggest that the following question be added: "Briefly describe your emergency communications protocol and/or procedures, including both RWCP personnel and'external agencies."
7 III.B Question 1 should be.rephrased to track existing D.2-review guidelines:
1.e., to list revenue sources and monies available from them in the most recent'fiscal year.
8 III.C The statement that the RWCP will be required to sample and analyze diverse media is not established.
Although it is desirable for the RWCP to have lab support should the need for sampling and analysis
"\\
k SLITP REVIEW l
Page locations Comment j
present itself, it is not a requirement for the-program to conduct independent or confirmatory
.sampling.
10 III.E Guidelines for the section on.Program Management should include guidance on performance of supervisory reviews. We suggest the following be added:
"Supervisory reviews of licensing cases, inspection reports and enforcement actions shcald be.performed."
i 10 III.E In keeping with the above comment, Question 1 should be revised to read as follows: "How does RWCP j
management keep abreast of licensing, inspection,-
i enforcement and related programs? Do all licensing cases, inspection reports and enforcement correspondence receive management review?; If not all, what fraction does receive such review?"
1 An additional question which should be included in.
this section is: "How many field accompaniments of inspectors were conducted by program managment?"
1 12 IV.A Guidance on technical staff qualifications indicates that staff should have at least a B.S. in physical, i
science, life science or engineering.
However, the j
guidance contained in the policy statement on-1 qualifications of technical staff is not clear.on this i
point. We.suggest that you examine these two areas to
_l assure that a consistent statement is made on minimum
'l educational or training standards.
In the same area, we suggest that you expand the
)
guidance by including the.following:
"Written position descriptions should be_prepared to assure i
that necessary_ basic skills and functions are included within the program and that professional-i qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily i
identified."
i I
i
)
l i.'
a
i
~
SLITP REVIEW 1
Page Locations Comment
)
12 IV.A Questions 1 and 7 overlap in the description of duties of full-time staff. To avoid redundancy, these questions should be combined into one.
1 Question 6, while it may.be interesting, would provide j
little or no information that is relevant to the 1
evalation of the program, per se. We suggest that you delete it.
4 16 V.A There appears to be some overlap between the scope of V.A, Technical Quality of Licensing Program, and V.C.
Licensing Procedures. As.we see it, the former is' intended to address how the RWCP has in practice implemented the procedures spelled out in the latter.'
Hence, the paragraph on what the licensing program j
should include belongs more properly under V.C.
j 17 V.A As a point of clarification, what.is meant in.
Questions 7 & 8 by the term "licensee visits?" How do such visits relate to inspections?
In this section we suggest that an additional question be included on the number of major and minor or administrative amendments issued since the last j
progre.m review. We do not see this covered elsewhere
)
and feel that it is an important measure of the efficiency of the licensing program.
20 V.C Question 11 on public involvement has been addressed in previous sections (II.D and II.G), and therefore, we suggest its deletion here.
Given the relatively small number of major licensing actions in a RWCP and the'developing nature of such programs, we doubt that Question 12 will provide much in the way of useful information and suggest that it be deleted.
i i
21 VI.A Sections VI.A, Inspection; VI.B. Inspection Frequency; i
and VI.C, Inspector Performance are sufficient'ly related that they could in the interest of efficiency be combined into one section on Inspections.
Although the guidelines for VI.A recommend a 'full-time resident inspector program, there is no follow-up
.~
+
a SLITP REVIEW i
r 1
Page Locations Comment addressing this guideline. We suggest that'the; l
following questions be added: "Does the inspection-program include a resident inspector for the LLW site?
If so, what are the;responsibilities of the position?"'
22-23~
VI.C The guidelines and questions on inspector performance:
focus'almost exclusively on inspector training and'.
qualification and not on performance.
If you,intendL to focus on performance, the guidelines and.questionsE should reflect this.intent. We'suggest that you consider the existing D.2 section on Inspector4 Performance as a model.
~
t 23 VI.D If this document is intended to be a stand-alone y
document, we suggest that rather than refer toithe'RCP-l guidelines as is done in the section, that those 1
appropriate guidelines be reproduced here.
l 23-24 VI.E In the' guidelines for Enforcement Procedure, you imply :
that enforcement standards nre somehow related to
'I categories such as generator, transporter, etc. ~This r
link is unclear to us. _ We-suggest that you track more closely the enforcement guidance-in the existing D.2.
l 24 VI.E As noted in the previous comment, we suggest that you have your questions track more closely with the-questions in the existing D.2.
j j!
24 VI.F The guidelines for.inspection procedures should track more closely the guidance of the existing D.2~on this subject.
In addition, the questions should be 1
stand-alone in nature'and'should not refer to D.2'for j
additional questions. -We suggest that appropriate-questions from D.2-be incorporated_here.
]
4
.25 VI.G As noted in the.previous comment, the questions to be_.
l asked regarding Inspection Reports should be specified
.)
here and should not refer back to D.2.
Welsuggest that appropriate questions from D.2 be.incorporated-here.
-j l
25 VI.H Guidelines on Independent Measurements-should inclu~de; 1
verification of licensee's environmental'monitoring j
l program, as'well as soils testing and materia,ls-testing.
" i j
1
... ~
L l
E SLITP REVIEW H
L 1
Page Locations Comment
,{
l 4
26 VII.B How appropriate is it from a regulatory standpoint to recommend that local entities be.invited to participate in the RWCP.monitoring program? How.
inclusive do you envision this.participation to be?
l How does the RWCP assure QA in such participation?. We think these and other questions raise doubts about,the advisability of such participation.
i i
i l-
)
i 4
i l
1 l
l I
i I
!-)
+i l
t
.i L
g