ML20034A880
| ML20034A880 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/13/1990 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Jorling T NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004240471 | |
| Download: ML20034A880 (10) | |
Text
.
pa tte
{
- cf o
UNITED STATES
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20b55
'k,....+
April 13, 1990 l
3 Thomas C. Jorling, Comissioner New York State Department of i
Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233
Dear Comissioner Jorling:
This is to confirm and follow-up the discussion Mr. John McGrath, Region ! State Agreements Officer, held with Executive Deputy Commissioner Langdon Marsh on August 2, 1989 at the conclusion of our review of the Department's radiation control program.
We apologize for the delay in forwarding our review findings to you.
At t1e August 2,1989 meeting, preliminary oral findings of adequacy and compatibility for the Department's program were offered. Subsequent NRC Regional and Headquarters analysis of the review report disclosed several areas of concern as discussed below, that precluded findings of adequacy and compatibility. To follow-up, we had planned to conduct a consolidated review of the four New York Agreement State Agencies in March 1990 and combine our August 1989 review finding with our March.1990 findingsfortheDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation-(Department).
Three of the four Agencies have requested postponement of the March 1990 review, and we have rescheduled that combined review for October 1990.
In view of this postponement, we have decided to transmit our August 1989 review findings to you at this time. We regret any inconvenience this has caused.
A major area of staff effort in the Department's Bureau of Radiation (Bureau) has been and will continue to be in low-level radioactive waste. The Department has made significant progress in the development of regblations equivalent to 10 CFR Part 61 regarding low-level waste.
However, in accordance with NRC policy, we must defer a finding of compatibility until the Department completes the process of implementing all appropriate provisions of 10 CFR Part 61. The Department needs to continue to move forward with its schedule to complete the State regulations and do so on a priority basis so that all necessary regulations are in place before an application for the site is submitted.
Status and Compatibility of Regulation is a Category I indicator.
With regard to the Bureau's Compliance program, a number of issues caused us some concern and, until resolved, prevent a finding of adequacy for the program.
A number of permittees were reported to be overdue for inspection.
Although the Bureau had prepared a plan to address the backlog, the l
$bEQQs 3
pn g
l
f i
Thomas C. Jor11ng 2
1,PR 1 s 190 Bureau was unable to fulfill commitments in the plan. Given the population of approximately 50 permittees and an inspection staff of s
two, the backlog should have been addressed.
Status of Inspection Program is a Category I indicator.
The Department signed a consent order with Cintichem (then Union Carbide) in 1978 relating to releases to the environment of radiciodine. Over the past 11 years, the Department's enforcement of this Consent Order has lapsed and the Bureau staff was uncertain whether the Consent Order was still applicable. We also found that the Bureau was not tracking enforcement correspondence.
Enforcement Procedures is a Category I indicator.
During our review, two inspectors were accompanied on an inspection of a Department permittee.
The inspectors were not well prepared and needed a clearer understanding of goals and objectives of inspections.
We believe that the Department needs to update its inspection procedures at.d
),
the staff needs to spend more time in preparation for inspections, j
Inspectors' Performance and Capability is a Category 1 indicator.
Collectively, these findings are indicative of a compliance program that i
needs stronger management oversight.
In addition to steps to correct the specific deficiencies, we recommend the Department carefully review the management of the compliance program with objectives of assuring that the compliance staff are adequately trained, inspections are well planned and thorough and compliance actions are timely and followed through.
I We also recommend, as part of the development of the regulatory program forlow-levelradioactivewaste(LLW),thattheDepartmentfinalizethe Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State Department of Labor concerning division of regulatory responsibilities over LLW.
l An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement i
State programs is attached as Enclosure 1.
]
, contains further details on the above comments as well as additional comments and recommendations. We would appreciate your review of, and written response to, these comments and recommendations. We are enclosing a second copy of this letter for placement in the State's public document room or otherwise to be made available for public view,
Thomas C. Jorling 3
APR 13 1PKI
)
i
]
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to our representative during the review.
I am looking forward to the responses to our recommendations.
Sincerely, l
arlton Kammerer. Director l
State Programs i
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC T. T. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Dr. Paul Merges Director, Bureau of Radiation State Liaison Officer (NRC :Public DocumentL Room" State Public Document Room 6
I
i APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" The
- Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as an NRC i
Policy Statement.
The Guide provfdes 29 Indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas. Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for
~
improvements may be critical.
Category 11 indicators address program functions which provide essential
]
technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.
Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the Category 11 indicators Ireq.e., those that fall under Category 1 indicators.
principal program areas i uently can be used to identify underlying J
problems that are causing or contributing to difficulties in Category I
_i indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use thete 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, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the i
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 may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need for improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt i
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 i
actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent
)
review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a special limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meetino with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Commission will be informed and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of-the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
1 ENCLOSURE 1
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW AND COMMENTS l
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM i
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 24, 1989 TO AUGUST 2, 1989 i
Scope of Review This program review was conducted in accordance with the Comission's Policy
)
Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, and the internal procedures established by the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, Agreement State Program. The l
Department's program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided 1
in the Guidelines. The review included discussions with program management l
and staff, technical evaluation of selected permit and compliance files, the evaluation of the Department's responses to an NRC, questionnaire that was i
sent to the State in preparation for the review, and a field evaluation of Department inspectors.
i The 12th regulatory program review meeting with the Department was held during the period April 24-27 and August 1-2, 1989 in Albany, New York.
The Department was represented by Dr. Paul Merges, Director, Bureau of Radiation. A review of selected permit and compliance actions was conducted by John McGrath Regirn 1, on April 26-27 and August 1-2 1989. A field accompaniment of Dep6rtw nt inspectors at the SUNY Health Science Center in Syracuse was conducted on April 25, 1989 by John McGrath. A closecut meeting with Executive Deputy Comissioner Langdon Marsh was held on August 2,1989.
Subsequent to the review, hRC staff planned to conduct a consolidated review of the four New York Agreement State Agencies in March 1990 and combine the August 1989 review with the March 1990 findings.
Three of the four Agencies, however, requested a postponement of the March 1990 review. We have rescheduled it for October 1990.
Therefore, the findings are being transmitted to the State at this time to enable the Department to initiate actions to correct the deficiencies.
Conclusion A finding of adequacy and compatibility was deferred pending the Department's response on Category 1 comments.
Status of Program Related to Previous NRC Findings Comments and recommendations from NRC's previous review were sent to.the Department in a letter dated October 20, 1987. The Department has made some progress in each of the areas of concern as follows. During the last review, it was recommended that the Bureau reevaluate its policy regarding the issuance of permits and establish specific objectives of the program including ENCLOSURE 2
r 2
i 1
reconfirming or revising the permit exemption limits in Part 380. The Bureau has reconfirmed these exemption limits and in the process eliminated 50 unnecessary permits. The Bureau has standardized its permits and is drafting procedures to cover the permit process.
In this review, no recommendations were developed relative to the quality of the permitting actions, but we again found deficiencies in the compliance program.
During the last review, it was also recomended that the Bureau establish specific policy objectives for its compliance program.
Documentation practices were inconsistent, enforcement letters were not always sent, and inspection conclusions were not always supported by information in the inspection report. The Bureau has developed an inspection report form which has standardized documentation practices.
Enforcenent letters are now i
issued in all cases.
However, additional procedures need to be developed.
i as discussed below.
Current Revtewj omments an d g o_mmendations All 29 program indicators were reviewed and the Department fully satisfies 23 of these indicators. Specific coments and recommendations for the remaining six indicators are as follows:
1.
_L_EGISLATION AND REGULATIONS Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I indicator. The.
following conment and recommendation are made.
Coment The Department needs to adopt regulations equivalent to portions of 10 CFR Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" to maintain compatibility. According to the NRC Policy Statement for Evaluation of Agreement State Programs, regulations needed for compatibility must be adopted by the Agreement States within three years after the NRC rules become effective. Part 61 of 10 CFR became effective January 26, 1983. The Department has-partly developed regulations for this purpose, Parts 381 and 382.
NRC staff is reviewing these regulations for compatibility.
l Regulations covering financial assurance, post-closure activities and other necessary requirements still need be adopted by the State.
ReconenendaMg NRC staff will inform the Bureau of the results of the review of the Departnent's regulations, Parts 381 and 382. The State should take prompt action to adopt the remaining regulations needed for compatibility.
l 3
l l
- 11. LICENSING Licensing Procedures is a Category 11 indicator. The following comment and recomendation are made.
Coment We are encouraged that the Bureau's permit program appears to be stabilizing. We believe that the policy of issuing permits for specific categories and one permit for each facility per category is appropriate i
i and should be formalized as Departmental policy. The staff has prepared draf t general permit review procedures and one checklist for fume hood permits.
L l
Recomendation We recommend that the Bureau finalize its draft procedures and complete the preparation of checklists for all categories of permits.
111. COMPLIANCE A.
Status of Inspection Program is a Category I indicator. The following coment and recommendation are made.
_ Comment The Bureau is responsible for inspecting approximately 50 permittees.
An inspection staff of two is available for this purpose. During our 3
partial review in April 19B9, the Bureau reported that there were a number of permittees overdue for inspection and had prepared a plan to address the backlog in a timely manner. During our closeout of the review in August 1989, however, it was noted that the Bureau has not accomplished the gos.s of the plan insofar as inspections planned during the April to August time frame.
Recommendation We recommend' that the Bureau redraf t its ins)ection plan, comit to complete it in a timely fashion, and esta)11sh inspection goals and milestones to maintain the inspection program on schedule..
+
B.
Enforcement Procedures is a Category I indicator. The following coment and recommendation are made.
i i
b
+n.
l 1
3 II, LICENSING Licensing Procedures is a Category II indicator. The following comment and recommendation are made.
Coment We are encouraged that the Bureau's permit program appears to be I
stabilizing. We believe that the policy of issuing permits for specific categories and one permit for each facility per category is appropriate and should be formalized as Departmental policy. The staff has prepared draft general permit review procedures and one checklist for fume hood permits.
Recomendation r
We recommend that the Bureau finalize its draft procedures and complete the preparation of checklists for all categories of permits.
III. COMPLIANCE A.
Status of Inspection Program is a Category I indicator. The following coment and recommendation are made.
Comment The Bureau is responsible for inspecting approximately 50 permittees.
An inspection staff of two is available for this purpose. During our partial review in April 1989, the Bureau reported that'there were a number of permittees overdue for inspection and had prepared a plan to address the backlog in a timely manner.- During our closeout of the review in August 1989, however, it was noted that the Bureau has not accomplished the goals of the plan insofar as inspections planned during the April to August time frame.
Recommendation We recomend that the Bureau redraft its ins)ection plan, comit to complete it in a timely fashion, and esta>11sh inspection goals-and milestones to maintain the inspection program on schedule.
B.
Enforcement Procedures is a Category I indicator. The following coment and recommendation are made.
J
s.
m 1aa,e-h-
y 4
Comment i
Cintichem, Inc. is one of the State's major manufacturers. As a result of the Department determining that Cintichem (then Union Carbide) was operating in violation of Department regulations, r
the Department issued a Consent Order in 1978 requiring the company to meet certain requirements pertaining to releases of radiciodine to the environment and provide certain information to the Department. Over the past 11 years, the Depsrtment's enforcement of this consent order has lapsed.
(It - took some effort on the part of Bureau staff to locate a copy of the Consent Order.)~ lt was not known with certainty by the Bureau staff whether the provisions of the Order were still applicable. Additionally, we found that the Bureau was not tracking permittee responses to enforcement correspondence.
This raises a question as to the Bureau's ability to f
effectively track escalated enforcement.
Recommendation We recommend that the Bureau institute a procedure to track enforcement actions. We also recommend that the Bureau review the current status of environment releases at Cintichem and, if warranted, modify existing Orders and issue the necessary permits in line with current Department policy.
C.
Inspectors' Performance and Capability is a Category 1 indicator, The following coment and reconsnendation are made.
1 Co!!gg}
NRC guidelines call for Agreement State programs to have inspection procedures which clearly spell out the objectives and goals of materials inspections. The Bureau has prepared a Division. Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) dealing with radiation facility inspection procedures.
However, during the accompaniment of inspectors, it became evident that the inspectors were somewhat unsure of the exact purpose of the inspections and exhibited some uncertainty as to how to conduct.the inspections.
A clearer understanding by the inspectors of the goals and objectives of the inspection program is warranted.
i j
-e t
4 5
Recommendation We recommend that the Bureau expand its procedures to provide more technical detail particularly in the area of observation of permitted:
activities and tracking resolution of non-compliance, items. Also, with this additional guidance, we believe that the inspection staff (Messrs..Zobel and Varcasio)'should be able'to perform 4 inspections independently.- This would be a more efficient use of staff resources.
We also recomend Bureau management enlarge the program for-supervisory accompaniments of inspectors with the objective of assuring that inspectors are prepared and are thorough.
D.
Confirmatory Measurements is 'a Category II indicator. -The.following' comments ano recomendation are made..
a_=m One of the primary areas where inspection activities can be more technically productive is in the area of confirmatory measurements.
At the present time, the Bureau has no equipment or instrumentation to perform these measurements at permittee facilities. We also found-that while the State Department of Health has been conducting the Statewide environmental monitoring program, results have not been provided to the Department.
Recomendation We recomend that the necessary equipment such as velometers, smoke tubes, air samplers be purchased in order that the Bureau staff can be in a position to perform inspections which have a strong technical support and basis for inspection findings.
We believe that a strong confirmatory measurements program'is essential to an effective regulatory program particularly in the areas under the Department's jurisdiction. We also recommend the Department review its arrangement with the Department of Health for environmental monitoring with the objective of assuring the results of the monitoring are provided to the.
Department on a timely basis.
Summary Discussion with State Representatives A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review was held with Executive Deputy Comissioner Langdon Marsh on August 2,1989.
Mr. N. G. Kaul, Director, Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation;
i i
I i
6 Dr. Paul Merges. ;rief, Bureau of Radiation; and Barbara Youngberg, Bureau of Radiation, owere also present. ' The NRC representative indicated that
-+
the Department had made progress in a number of program areas since the previous review. The low-level waste p'rogram was progressing on schedule and the permit program was being revitalized. -The NRC representative then discussed the areas where further improvements needed to be made. The question of Federal Government. funding support for the program was raised-and the State representatives were informed of the '1egislative history of the program which precluded the Federal Government providing direct operating funds for Agreement State programs.
i
+
9 k
m h
i
.