ML20042G879
| ML20042G879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/09/1990 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9005160217 | |
| Download: ML20042G879 (10) | |
Text
,
JS/C.KAMMERER/3/6 MAY - 91990
'MEMORAt[DUM FOR:Carlton C. Kannerer, Director State Prograrns, CPA FROM:
Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Managernent and Deconnissioning. HMSS
SUBJECT:
LLWM STAFF COMMENTS RESUL11HG FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE UTAll AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM REVIEW, FEBRUARY 5-7, 1990 As you know, the LLWM staff assisted Robert Doda, Region IV RSA0, in the review of the Utah State Radiation Control Prograin (RCP), February 5-7, 1990.
At the end of the review, LLWM team raembert provided information relevant to the LLW portion of the review to Mr. Doda. The attached report provides a more cornplete sunenary of staff connents and recor:anendations relative to the review i
of the LLW portion of the Utah RCP. We reconnend that a copy of the attached report be sent to Larry Anderson, Director, Utah Bureau of Radiation Control.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this review.
Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Managernent and 9econnissioning, NMSS
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Doda DISTRIBUTION:
(LLWM90-030) 3GPtral File T 409;450 NHSS r/f RLBangart PLohaus JJSurrueier JKennedy LLOB r/f JGreeves RBoyle JShaffner JLepre LLOB t/f PDR Yes: /X _/
PDR No: /
/
Reason: Proprietary /
/
or CF Only /
/
g, ACPW Yes: /F/
No: /
/
Sur.a6CT ABSTRACT:
LLWM COMMENTS FM PARTICIPATION IN UTAH AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM VISIT FEBRUARY 5-7, 1990 D
(TY A
Nl OFC :LLOD
- LL
- LU
- LL LLWM
- llQ NAME:JShdffner/jj:JKepnd,dy PLohaus
- JSdrraeier :JGreeves :RBangart w%
A
,463 fiME:04//j/90
- 04/ /90
- Q9/.3/90 :Op /90
- 04/ /90 :@/4/90 :
[kld
~
0FFICIAL REC 00.D COPY 9005160217 9003o9 PDR WASTE PDC jY/
WM-3
[,
JS/C.KAtt4ERER/3/6 i
'MEMORAtIDUM FOR: Carlton C. Kamerer, Director State Programs, GPA FROM:
Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMS5
SUBJECT:
LLWM STAFF COMMENTS RESULTING FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE UTAH AGREDiENT STATE PROGRAM REVIEW, FEBRUARY 5-7, 1990 As you know, the LLWM staff assisted Robert Doda, Region IV RSA0, in the review the Utah State Radiation Control Program (RCP), February 5-7, 1990.
At the en of the review, LLWM team members provided information relevant to the LLW portt n of the review to Mr. Doda. The attached report provides a more complete sumar f staff coments and recommendations relative to the review of the LLW portion the Utah RCP. We recomend that a copy of the attached report be sent to Larr derson, Director, Utah Bureau of Padiation Control.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this review.
\\ Richard L. Bangart, Director
\\DivisionofLow-LevelWasteManagement gand Decomissioning, NMSS
Enclosure:
As stated
\\
cc:
R. Doda DISTRIBUTION:
(LLWM90-030)
CentraTTITe f 409.45 NMSS r/f s
RLBangart PLohaus JJSurmeier JK6qnedy LLOB r/f JGreeves RBoyle JShaffner JLepte LLOB t/f l
\\
PDR Yes: /X /
PDR No: /
/
Reason: Proprietary /
/
tr CF Only /
/
/
No: /__/
LX_LLWM COMMENTS FM PARTICIPATION IN UTAH ACW Yes:
REEMENT STATE SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
PROGRAM VISIT, FEBRUARY 5-7, 1990
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OFC :LLOB*
- LLOB
- LLOB*
- LLTB
- LLWM
- LLWM NAME:JShaffner/jj :JKennedy
- PLohaus
- J5urmeier :JGreeves :RBangart :
DATE:04/04/90
- 04/ /90
- 04/05/90 :04/ /90
- 04/ /90 :04/ /90 :
i 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
s A>
p**fu y f
- w...
A pd
',,edr 6
1-N/^'lgv MEMORANDUM FOR: Carlton C. Kamnerer Director State Programs, GPA FROM:
Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Managemen and Decomissioning, HMSS
SUBJECT:
LLWM STAFF COMMENTS RESbtTING FR PARTICIPATION IN THE UTAH AGREE NT STATE PROGRAM REVIEW, FEBRUAR 5-7, 1990 As you know, the LLWM staff assisted Rober Doda),RegionIVRSAO,inthereview to the Utah State Radiation Control Progr (RCP February 5-7, 1990.
At the end of the review, LLWM team nemb rs provided information relevant to the LLW portion of the review to Mr.- D a.
The attached report provides a more complete sunshary of staff consents an recomnendations relative to the review of the LLW portion of the Utah RCP.
Thank you for the opportunity to rticipate in this review.
Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of low-level Waste Management and Decomissioning, NMSS
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
(LLM Central file i 409.4S'9 -030)
NMSS r/f RLBangart PLoha'us JJSuroeier JKennedy LLOB r/f JGreeves RBo/le JShaffner JLepre LLOB t/f
./
POR Yes: C/
No!/1 ~/
Resson: Propr ietary /
/
or CF 0nly / _/
/
No: N/
SUBJECT AB$ TRAC LLWM COMME FM PA*tTICIPATION IN UTA4 AGREEMENT STATE
/.
PROGRAM YlSIT, FEBRUARY 5-7, 1990 0FC :LLOB
- LLOB
- LLTB
- LLWM
- LLWM NAML:05hattner/JJ :JKennedy
- Ptolaus :05urnveier :vGreeveh:RBangart DATE:M/ef/90
- 03/ /90
- d(/[/90:03/ /90
- 03/ /90 :03/ /90 :
. ut OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DA f t of Doct>Miht D&tt et(ElvtD NO Paul Lohaus-2/7/90 2/16 1or ticket LLWM 90-00 t'>
v' c
ti.
.o
.o.,:
oi..
~
10 Onlo (C
01Han Jir.Shatit.cr actio= = cin.a v O
co=cuantwet O
D^****"'D 2/28/90 -
o.c i.o~ ~i c i n... a co.,
a I'
GL ASS'f -
Pult Of f s('t e,gtcapt
/'
- )/
.}
f' L
n o n em DE KhtP fl04. 4 Meet De *tatuenet ed)
H4 f t ARE D 10 DATI SteilV$DBY DAtt UTAli A6kEEMENT STATE PROGtAM REVIEW
} g.,,
Lohaus/$haffnor 2/15
- / j.,+,
- ~,
INcLOSUR&t
- .p,.t
,y,
+
..A
(').f,./;Vcf g~
~
..ll e-
)
>j ffy.; f ' f * ;., ':
o l ',1,,, r u' w j.
y' w r],
- /,i l
' Te h.
sf/
o, P
}
u i uucti... ous.,o.,co..inio~
'=',%1 =
[
l
c j
1 1
Utah Radiation Control Prograra Agreement State Program Revin February 5-9, 1990 Low-Level Waste Management Report Review
Participants:
J. Starmer, LLTB; M. Thaggard, LLTB; J. Shaffner, LLOB Persons Contacted:
L. Anderson, D. Finerfrock, M. Day, C. Jones, UtahDureauofRadiationControl(BRC)
Materials Reviewed:
License and Amendments for NORM waste disposal facility, compliance file, safety evaltation review supporting licensing decision, environmental monitoring file, and i
statement of work for proposed techr.ical assistance contract Because Utah does not have an amended agreement for regulating the disposal of AEA source, byproduct and SNM, no LLW licensing actions were available for review. The NRC staff did, however, review the license issued by Utah for the disposal of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) at the Envirocare facility.
In order to provide comments to Utah BRC, the staff assumed that a LLW disposal facility would be conducted in a similar manner as that for the NORM facility.
These comments are made with that assumption as a basis.
I.
PERSONNEL Comment:
The Division of Environmental Health has available, or has access to, the number of staff and staff expertise necessary to regulate LLW disposal. The staff that BRC currently has available for evaluating a l
low-level waste application consists of two Health Physicists and one Civil Engineer. Staffing from other disciplines will have to come from the l
Geological and Minerals Survey (also within the Division of Environmental l
Health) and from contractors.
It should be pointed out, however, that none of the staff is dedicated exclusively to LLW. The program director assured us I
that staff will be available to process an application when necessary. This includes both internal and external resources. Some mobilization effort will be required both in organizing and training staff resources for LLW disposal license application.
o
' j Recomendation:
1.
Develop a project management plan for review of a LLW application (NRC i
assistance is available, if necessary) showing numbers and types of disciplines needed during the review.a comitment from appropriate su
>ervisors (g the plan as a basis, obtain Usin ce the extent practicable within agency constraints) for tie use of the individuals in the license review effort.
2.
Wh.n' individuals are identified for the review,-develop and implement a training plan to allow them to develop or fine tune skills specific to a
{
LLW application review.
j l
Comment:
I Assistance in the area of geosciences will come from the Utah Crological and Minerals Survey.
Since the Utah Geological and Minerals Survey is a separate agency, its staff may not always be available to assist with low-level waste licensing activities.
Further, the Utah Geological and Minerals Survey ma maintnin the type of staff needed to. assist in low-level waste licensing (y not such as those familiar with hydrogeology).
Recomendation:
The BRC should work out with the Utah Geological and Minerals Survey a definite means.of being able to get the type of assistance necessary for a LLW license review.
II. LICENSING C: ment:
During the review it was noted that the applicant for the NORM license used
-data generated for.the r0E Vitro UMTRAP project in characterizing the site.
While these data are adequate and appropriate for the type of groundwater protection review tha.; must accompany an UMTRAP project, they are not entirely consistent with the (ata needed for characterizing and carrying out performance assessmeit for a LLRW disposal facility in accordance with
Recomendation:
The documentation required from the license a)plicant for a 10 CFR Part 61 LLRM disposal facility should be similar to t1at specified in HUREGS-1199 and 1200.
. o Comment:
The primary emphasis of the review of the design was on surface water stabil ity. During the review of the program, LLWM staff found no evidence that a 10 CFR Part 61 performance assessment was made by the applicant or the BRC staff.
The applicant stated, in one instance that, infiltration is negligible. However, no analysis was done to justify this statement. Further, not all aspects of site characterization were reviewed as thoroughly as would be required for a LLW application.
BRC stat T noted that a groundwater specific performance assessment may not be needed Lecause the groundwater is not considered a viable pathway (considering its high calinity) and radiation emission will be minimized though the development of a cover similar in design to that used by DOE.
Reconenendation:
The review criteria and methods defined in NUREGS-1199 and 1200 should be followed for the review of a LLW facility application. Performance assessment is an area considered critical in a Part 61 review by the LLWM staff and should be addressed by BRC for a Part 61 LLW disposal facility.
Comment:
Documentation of the LLW application evaluation should be more detailed than that used for the NORM application.
It was difficult to determine how some of the issues raistd during the evaluation of the NORM application were handled.
This documentation will be especially important in the future to provide a record and base of information for staff on previous licensing decisions.
l Recommendation:
1 Written documentation is needed to summarize what was reviewed, concerns raised, how concerns were resolved and to state the findings and basis for the l-findings. A technical evaluation report (TER) similar to those developed l-by the NRC staff in its licensing reviews is one method of documenting the review results.
L Comment:
In several cases, the staff was unable to-locate incoming amendment requests or analysis in support of the amendment decision in the file.
Reconmendation:
BRC should include all documentation of anendment decisions in the amendment file (or refer to support file if necessary).
y
III. COMPLIANCE I
Comment:
The BRC has been aggressive in inspecting Envirocare against the license. The I
artgram includes both an onsite inspector and periodic inspections by aeadquarters personnel.
In most cases inspections have identified nukerous deficiencies, infractions, and violations on the part of the licensee. There have been many instances of multiple infractions and the same type of inftection in subsequent reviews. Thus, enforcenent has not been ef'ective in preventing deficiencies.
Recommendation:
The CRC needs to be more aggressive in invoking sanctions in order to get the licensee to conform to license requirements.
BRC should use all available tools in order to assure compliance; i.e.,
escalated enforcement, escalated civil penalties, enforcement conferences, etc.
If there are limitations (either statutory or regulatory) to such enforcement, we suggest that BRC pursue administrative or legislative remedies to allow for timely and appropriate enforcement.
IV. HISCELLANEOUS 1.
Environnental Monitoring Comment:
l BRC is performing independent environmental monitoring and is receiving licensee data from the licensee. However, the LLW staf f found no documentation that a monitoring plan, including action icvels and background concentrations, was reviewed and approved by BRC.
Recommendation:
When licensing in accordance with Part 61, provide documentation of the review of envi;onmental data provided by the licensee. Also, provide docunentation of review and approval of a monitoring plan, as appropriate.
BRC should develop and implement procedures to analyze and interpret the data provided by the licensee.
?.
Financial Surety Comment:
The BRC staff appears to have been effective in confirming the apprcpriate level of financial surety for closure and 30-year care of the Envirocare facility. The surety is in the form of a cash deposit with a financial l
'I
~
L 4 i
- institution payable on demand by the state.
The amount in trust is currently
$779,000 plus interest. The staff has developed a contract-bid-level detailed 4
basis for the amount. Contingencies were built into unit costs for construction elements. The trust also includes a sinking fund for 30-year j
post-closure observation and maintenance. The amount of surety is based on the quantity of disposed or stored material allowed by the license and is adjusted 1
upward when that quantity is changed.
3.
Storsge of Weste at Envirocare Site Comment:
l The NORM license currently allows for an unspecified quantity of AEA material tobestored(notdisposedof)attheEnvirocaresite. This is in recognition 1
of the fact that Utah does not have authority to authorize the disposal of AEA material, geommendation:
1.
BRC should condition the license to establish a cap on both the quantity and nature of stored material.
2.
SRC should establish conditions for interim storage of materiti s uce currently the license is conditioned as a disposal license rather than a i
storage license.
Site Visit The LLWM staff also visited the Envirocare facility and offers the following observations. The facility is 80 miles west of Salt Lake City along a remote section of I-80. The host material is clay, there is little rainfall and there is rock for cover material readily available.
The licensee provided a pre-visit orientation, dosimetry was provided and health physics precautions were taken appropriate for such a facility.
Security appeared to be adequate.
L There was no active disposal ongoing, however, there was evidence of recent disposal.
It should be noted that the licensee relies heavily on local L
contractor personnel. The licensee has approximately 6-7 of his own staff on
- site during operations, 3-4 of which are safety personnel. There is no Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) permanently assigned to the site, although the
- corporate RSO and corpmte management visit weekly.
We appreciated this oppartunity to meet with an exchange information with the Utah BRC personnel and look forward to future cooperation.
L i
t r
6 Q 9 4, %
w g^.
- ~
W..,,,
l } -k f~a'rw p: '.
+,
t
'gt..'j Document-Name:
X JS/AP,122 UTAH.
.-p c,, n
. Requestor's: ID:
<00NESJ I;" 4' ~ '
l Author's Name:
lM
- J.$haffner 4/17/90-ey Document Conments
[n - J, iencl.(90-030)ltr.-C.Kammerer-UtahRadiation'ControlProgram v
E.O 1 i:: O. '
(s, f
Ph i-
[' J f,l; s
! E t
..r
?
vp
/
.f.-
)'q k
+
I 'I I,..
- p)-
ni c
- h
- 3 h
I.
~
I.. i.,t
'3
.t
'5-;
yc
'!l
- i.'
?
4 Y
I
}
j l, __ _
t
- w s >
5 i
i(
3
-]
t
, -h H
i c,-.
.m.
1
..41.
... --..- - - - -. - - ~ + - -. -. - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - -- -..
~~ -,