ML20033H101

Confirms 900209 Discussion Between Rj Doda & Kl Alkema Following NRC Review of State of UT Radiation Control Program.State Program for Regulation of Agreement Matls Adequate.Nrc Review Guidelines Encl

ML20033H101
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/11/1990
From:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
To:	Dandoy S UTAH, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9004180168
Download: ML20033H101 (7)

Text

,

5 /

W

= g,, g x

p.

. UNITED STATES j

7

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

}

t; WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 -

f

%.+

. April 11,.1990 Suzanne. Dandoy,: M.D.

Executive Director-

^

. State. Department of Health P.O.-Box 16700-c

. Salt Lake City, UT ~ ' 84116-0700

Dearl Dr. Dandoy:

q This confirms'the discussion Robert J. Doda, Region IV State: Agreements-Officer, held with Kenneth L. Alkema, Director, Division of Environmental

' Health, on February 9,1990, following our 1990' review of the Utah radiation t

control program.- - James A. Shaffner, John R.- Starmer, and Mark Thaggard, all l

.of NRC's Office of. Nuclear Material Safety and_ Safeguards, also participated in the review during February 5-7,.1990.

.]

r As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between 'the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of ~

i Utah, tne staff determined that the Utah radiation controls program for the-

_ regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the'public' health and_ safety and is compatible with the Commission's progrem.-

i We rish to commend the Bureau of Radiation Control for their efforts in completing 160 inspections during_the current review period with the result that, according to NRC criteria, there were no. overdue inspections-of-the more significant State licensees at the present' time.

L A significant portion of time during the rev_iew was spent on matters j

Ll relating to the naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) waste l

disposal site near Clive, Utah.

Even though NRC has no jurisdictional authority for the disposal of NORM materials, the staff of the dtah Bureau of Radiation Control took time to explain and provide backup information about this license to the NRC staff reviewers.

The~NRC also recognizes the extensive knowledge the State has'of the geology-and characteristics of this site,.and the experie.nce the State had in 1987 with the removal of ths former Vitro uranium mill tailings from q

Salt Lake City (Title I project administered by DOE) and the disposal of these tailings in a location adjacent to the NORM disposal site.

j Since Utah has applied for'and expects to receive soon additional

\\

/

authority for the disposal of low level radioactive waste (LLRW) i (i.e., one category of agreement materials), any licensing action at the NORM waste disposal site for the disposal of agreement.

materials wuld have to conform with a regulatory program compatible with the NRC's program for similar materials. The NRC representatives conveyed information obout the use of HRC's guidance regarding the regulation of LLRW disposal to the Bureau's staff. They also explained the requirements under Part 61-type regulations for the issuance of a license forfa LLRW disposal site.

NRC comments regarding this subject were discussed.with the Bureau's staff during the review meeting.

9004'1E:0168 900411 PDR STPRG ESOUT 4

PDC

--. s --

a m

w-v

+-m n

w

.e t

.~

T 4

~.

Suzanne Dandoy, M.D.-

2 APR 11 1990' i

A question was raised by the State regardinglthe staffing. resources necessary to license a LLRW disposal site..NRC's NUREG-1274 provides this.:information as an estimated 8' person-years'of effort for the complete licensing action.--These' resources.may be supplied by a State's radiation

~

control staff, other-State agency assistance,-or contracts for technical; i

assistance. 'Although NRC-has not closely evaluated the resources necessary l

for a more restricted licensing action such as Utah envisages (the disposal i

.of bulk;: low-concentration, source material waste). the NRC's Division of Low Level Waste _ Management and Decomissioning does not foresee a large reduction in the 8 person-years of effort mentioned above..

1 An explanation of our policies and, practices for reviewing Agreement?

programs-is' enclosed as Enclosure 1. contains our sumary of-

]

= assessments regarding-the program. These were discussed with Mr. Alkema'

~

during the closeout meeting.

Our review disclosed that all-other program' indicators wcre'within NRC guidelines. Also, a number of other technical matters were discussed with

'the: radiation control staff and resolved during the course of-the' review

meeting, j

i appreciate.the courtesy and cooperation-you and your staff extended to Mr. Doda and the other NRC reviewers during the review meeting. Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the Public Document i

Room or to otherwise be made available for review.

Sincerely, original signed by Carlton Kammerc(

Carlton Kamerer. Director State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs

Enclosures:

As Stated cc:

J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations l

R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIV L

Larry Anderson, Director, Bureau of Radiation Control State Liaison Officer L

NRC Public Document Room

' tate Public Document Room y

bec: See next page.

L F

e r,

v.,

Suzanne _Dandoy, M.D.

-3 APR 11 1990-bec w/encls:

Chairman' Carr -

Comissioner Roberts Comissioner' Rogers Comissioner Curtiss o

Comissioner > Remick

'l q

Distribution:

SA RF D1R RF l

A. B. Beach, RIV i

W. L. Brown, RIV-H. J. Faulkner, RIV-C. A. Hackney, RIV J. T. Gilliland, RIV H. Denton C. Kamerer l

V. Miller DCD(SP01) 1 EDO RF SDroggitis Utah File M Ab b Mc*

ddXNh V

\\&o N)

> }. [

) n n ()

A OFC :RIV:5A0

RA

5A:5P

5P:

GP

PA

.....:............:............:............:...../-

...:...F.pl-

~

Oli

.y..

NAMEL:RJDoda:1w

RuAartin

VLM111er a

re:

S chw z-to

JTa

..........:....t......:...ylor DATE :3/21/90

3/ /90

1[f/90

4//ff90 M/90 4p90

4 /p/90 JtFICIAL RECORD COPY i

iI l

d i

i

7 j

-g APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW

- [

0,f_ AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS l

The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control

' Programs," were. published in the Federal Register onlune 4,1987, 4

as an NRC Policy Statement. The' guidelines provide 2911ndicators

.for evaluating Agreement State program areas.. Guidance as_to.

i their relative importanceito an Agreement State program is.

j provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories, t

c' Category I indicators address program functions' which directly 1

relate to the State's_ ability to protect the public health and j

safety.

If significant problems ea!st in several Category I_

indicator areas,' then the~ need for improvements may be. critical.

Category II; indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary progra'n functions.

Good performance 1.n meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid'the development of problems _in one or more of the principal program areas,1.e., those that fall: ender Category,I indicators. Category II indicators frequently-can be used -to. identify.

underlying problems that are. causing,.or,' contributing to, dif ficulties _in Category I indicators.

i It is the NRC's, intention to use these categories in the following-

~

manner.. In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will. indicate-the category of each comment made.

If no significant Category;I comments are provided, thfs will indicate that-the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.

If one or more significant Category I comments are provided, the: State-will be notified that-the program deficiencies seriously affect-.the'-

State's ability to protect the-public health and safety and that the need' of' improvement in particular program areas is critical.

If, following i

receipt-and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such-

~

offering until.the State's actions are examined and their ef.fectiveness 4

confirmed in a subsequent review.

If additional.information:is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information L

through follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, j'

limited ruiew.

In addition, NRC staff may hold a special. meeting with i

l.

appropriate State represt.ntatives.

No signifie nt items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Commission will be informed of.

L the results of the reviews of'the individual Agreement State Programs and-copies of the review correspondence to the-States will-be placed-in the L

NRC Public Document Room.

If the-State. program does'not improve or if H

additional significant Category I -deficiencies have. developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC i

may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all' or'part of. the Agreement in accordance with Section 274t of the Act, as amended.

ENCLOSURE 1 f

Nf s

.-,--n

'a w

n-

ISUMMARY

OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS

'FOR THE UTAH RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 7ANUARY 29. 1988 TOFEBRUARY9.19g f

Scope'of Review This. program review was conducted in accordance tdth:the Comission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs. published in the

~

Federal Register on June 4~ 1987, Land the internal procedures established 1

by the Office of Governmental and'Public Affairs, Agreement States j

Program.~ The_ State's program was reviewed against the 29 program:

1 indicators provided in the Guidelines.. The review included inspector accompaniments, ' discussions _with program 'nanagement;and staff, technical-a

. evaluation:of selected license and compliance files, and:.the. evaluation:

d of the-State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that~was sent-to the Li State in preparation'for the review.

i The 4th-Regulatory Program Review meeting with Utah representatives was neld during-the -period of February 5-9, 1990, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

r The State was._ represented by Mr. Larry Anderson, Mr. Dane Finerfrock, and Mr..Craig Jones. 'The NRC was represented by Mr. Robert J. Doda, Region IV State Agreements Officer, and Mr. Jim Shaffner,.Mr. John Starmer, and Mr. Mark'Thaggard, Low Level Waste Management and. Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

A' review of selected i

. license and compliance files was conducted during February 5-7, 1990.

A-i review of legislation and regulations, organization, management and administration, and personnel was ' conducted on February 7,1990.

A summary meeting regarding the-results of the regulatory program review was held with Mr. Kenneth L. Alkema, Director Division of. Environmental Health, Department of Health, on. February 9,:1990, in Salt' Lake City, Utah.

1 In addition to the routine office review, an accompaniment of a Utah inspector, Julie Felice, was made at a medical clinic licensee: - Old Farm Radiology, License Number, UT-1800290, on February 8, 1990.

Conclusion u

l As a result of our review of the State's program and-the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the State of Utah, the staff determined that the Utah program for the regulation of agreement materials 1:; adequate to protect public health and safety' and is compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of similar materials.

Status of Ppgram Related to Previous NRC Findings

)

The previous NRC program review was concluded on January 29 988, and comments and recomendations were sent to the State..in a letai dated i

March 11, 1988.- At that time, the program was found to be adequate to i

protect the public _ health and ufety and compatible with the WC's i

program for the regulation of r..ailar s terials.

e 4

ENCLOSURE 2 i

1 w

e

.+

g

--y

-.i y

,.i-g9

-f Y

-r

g

.1 -.

n v

p;-

The comments e,d recommendations from the previous program review were.

'ftilowed up' and the State's responses were evaluated for adequacy. All previous comments and' recommendations have been satisfactorily closed out.

l i

gugrent ' Review Coments and Recommendations

-The Utah radiation control program (RCP) satisfies the Guidelines in 28-of the 29 indicators. The State'did not meet the Guih11nes in a.

~

Category I indicator. Technical Quality of Licensing' Actions. Our comment and recommendation relates to the storage _'ofl agreement materials at the Envirocare disposal site-for NORM materials:in Clive, Utah.- The

-State: of Utah ha' : applied for an amended agreement with.the NRC to cover :

s the authority far low-level-radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal. Untilisuch i

time that the State receives this authority and completes an appropriate licensing action' Envirocare will be storing certain-LLRW on site (uranium and thorium wastes from a rare. earth facility).:. Utah, currently, has the authority to authorize storege of.these materials within the State;-but-may.not authorize the disposal of these materials until the l

amended agreement with NRC is concluded and a-license review process is completed.

1.

Technical Quality' of Licensing Actions (Category 1 Indicator)

Comment (Minor. Significance)

During the Utah program review, an examination was made of the license and file information for Envirocare of Utah, Inc., License No. UT 2300249. 'This license authorizes the disposal of naturall, occurring radioactive materials (NORM). 'A visit to the facility near Clive, Utah, was arranged by the Bureau on February 6i1990, and included James A. Shaffner; John R. Starmer, and Mark Thaggard -

all of NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 'In addition to the authorizatior,for NORM disposal,'a license. condition authorizes, on a case-by-case basis, an unspecified: quantity of agreement materials (byproduct, source [ or special nuclear materials not sufficient to form a critical mass for storage only. This license condition is in. recognition of the fact tiat Utah does not presently have the authority in its agreement with NRC for the disposal.of agreement materials such as uranium and thorium wastes fro F rare earth' facilities.

Utah has applied for an amended agreement with NRC for this category of-material.

Recommendation We recommend that the Bureau condition this license to define an upper limit on the quantity of such radioactive material' that may be stored at the Envirocare site. Also, since the ' primary purpose of the license is for disposal, we recommend the Bureau review the license for possible storage restrictions for these materials that may be necessary in the event the storage activity becomes more extended in-1 time.

)

~

!J.

T y

,1 lae.+

.y-st u'

L3 0

t

. Summary Discussions with Representatives!

a A. summary meeting to present the, results of the regulatory program review e

was held with Mr.: Kenneth L.L Alkema',- Director, Division of Environmental.

Health, Department of Health,; on. February 9,1990. The scope and findings 1 of the review were discussed. He wasiinformed of the significance of the one' Category Il finding regarding; the Envirocare NORM license.. Mr. Alkema said the State would probably proceed directly with a licensing action for the waste uranium and thorium residues currently being stored at the -

Envirocare site, orice. an; amended, agreement with.NRC was concluded.

j i

Mr." Alkema asked what additional: staffing would be necessary!for licensing.

the-Envirocare s'ite for the stored LLRW materials thatJare included under the NRC agreement. The reviewer cited NRC guidance as being approximately 8 person-years of effort.for a full licensing action, and that this may be; somewhat' reduced for a more.restricteo licensing action, as envisaged by the Bureau.

1 Mr. Alkema stated the. Division was aware of the~ workload in radiation control'and had made the addition of some'FTE resources for LLRW activities a high priority within the Division. He.also expressed the

' State's appreciation 1for past' NRC assistance and training for the Utah staff. He said the Department will continue to support the_ radiation-a control program, any NRC-sponsored training courses, and cooperative l

efforts with.the NRC;and other Agreement State Programs.

A closecut discussion with the RCP technical staff'was conducted or February'9,.1990.

The State was represented by Mr..C. Jones ~,

Mr.. Dane-Finerfrock, and their staff.

Several general and specific questions were raised by-the. State representatives._ The review i

guideline questions and the State's responses were. discussed in detail.

In addition, the results of the license and. compliance casework reviews were provided to the staff for discussion.

l

~

l 5

e