ML20044A802

Advises That State of Il Program for Regulating Agreement Matls Adequate to Protect Public Health & Safety.Current Staffing Level May Not Be Sufficient for Completing Review of Two Complex License Applications in Less than 6 Months

ML20044A802
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/27/1990
From:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
To:	Ortciger T ILLINOIS, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9007050152
Download: ML20044A802 (11)

Text

-

I

• feag

• ~

o{

UNITED STATES j

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-l WASHINGTON, D. C 20655 9

~!

June 27,"1990 Thomas'W. Ortciger, Director

(

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, IL 62704

Dear Mr. Ortciger:

This is to confirm the exit briefing B. J. Holt and James Shaffner held on February 9,1990 with Terry Lash, James Van Vliet Paul Eastvold and other management staff of = the Office of Radiation Safety following our-review of the'lllinois radiation control program.

Vandy Miller, Assistant Director for-State Agreements: Program, State. Programs, and Carl Paperiello, Deputy Administrator, Region III, were also present and participated in the briefing.

1 Our stdff has determined, as a result of the regulatory review-and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the State, that the Illinois )rogram for regulating agreement materials is adequate to l

protect tie public health and safety and is compatible with the 1

Comission's. program. This finding of compatibility is contingent-on the Commission's evaluation of your response to Chairman Carr's letter to you dated June 15, 1990 in which he addressed the 1 millirem issue and requested clarification.

Since the review, time has expired for the State to adopt rules relating to bankruptcy _ notification and the reporting of medical misadministrations. We understand. that rulemaking is underway to adopt these and other rules under the Radiation Protection Act. We would appreciate being kept informed of the steps being taken by the Department to adopt these rules.

Our staff, however, identified several circumstances which need prompt'

. attention so that they will not detract from the abi'ity of the IDNS regulatory program.to license a low level radioactiv e waste (LLW) disposal facility.

First, the current staffing level, both in numbers

and d % rsity of expertise, may not be sufficient-fcr completing a review of two complex -license applications in less than six months. Second, review procedures may not be completed by October'1,1990,-the date 'the I

first license application is. scheduled to be submitted.

Third, mobilizing.

and. training of entry : level staff has yet to be accomplished, but must be for the review'of the license application. And finally, IDNS staff may need to develop internal procedures for determining that the applicant has met-the requirements in 32 111. Adm. Code 601 and 32 Ill. Adm. Code 606. Details l.

on each of these conditions can be found in Enclosure 3.

We observed that closure of the Sheffield LLW disposal facility is currently being regulated pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement between US Ecology and IDNS.

We recommended to your staff that they incorporate the Q

ff 3

coM 5 ois A ma t e,

e 1^

f _f. / 6'

._m

, l; L

', n' f_ c

..c.

a h - ? g #

?I:'

a

' 'd.

. 'i l(l s,

I E

Thomas W. Ortciger.

)

I l,

Distribution-

-SA.RF-5, Dir RFL d..

HDenton-Ckomerer.-

VMiller

TCombs 4..;;. e

,EDO-RF i

M.-

LCPaperiello-3

"?r

.SDroggiti s '

, l

-JShaffner w

-*DCDMSPDF)*

7;' V,-

BJHolt-

, Illinois File i

'l

.e.

'{'-

ts m

i

n,

0~

i 1;if

'l

.,.;..,h.

{

~

j u

I v

,)

i f

4.

,;)

I

'j.

l i

i

.t

. f-;'"

> J N' l>

r i

4p r

1

> 1 p];.

j; 4

I J

5 ;g I

J f'

E"

.:j -

i

.r onrSO.

r li '

p'

--T :

, \\ i' '

M{, ;f9,

-@ b 9

.6

. %' *;,s

y

['?

! Thomas W. Ortciger 2

~ JR 2 7 1990 3

terms of the agreement-into the active State license issued to US Ecology Lfor the Sheffield-site.

Your staff was receptive to the. recommendation, but wished to obtain prior advice from your legal counsel. Please' keep us informed of anyl progress on this matter.

An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing ~ Agreement State programs is. included as Enclosure-1. Enclosure 2'contains-our sumary of assessments regarding the program.

These should be reviewed and a response from your. Department addressing each recommendation is requested.

In reviewing your plans for licensing a-LLW disposal facility, we' identified several areas of concern. These were discussed with your staff prior to the exit briefing and are included as-observations in Enclosure 3.

We would appreciate your consideration of these concerns and any comments.

We are pleased with several as)ects of the State's' program. Your management staff'is knowledgea)1e of technical and administrative issues affecting your program and initiates, in most cases, prompt resolution of problems.

Your, technical staff is well qualified and appears to be highly motivated. There is no significant backlog of overdue inspections and your staff responds to most licensing requests within 30 days of receipt. We look forward to receiving confirmation that the Illinois legislature has enacted legislation extending the Illinois Radiation Protection Act beyond the current December 31, 1990 " sunset."

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended.by your staff to our representatives during the review and look forward to your response. A copy of this letter and the enclosures are provided for placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public information.

Sincerely, original siEned by Carlton Ksmmerer Carlton Kamerer, Director State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator, RIII State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Jocument Room bec w/encis:

Chairman Carr Commissioner Curtiss Comissioner Roberts Commissioner Remick D;.NMSS D:NMS W/

Commissioner Rogers

/

[/ u RMBerde(rog gy

• See previous concurrence GAM 17tto 05/ M /90 05/ %7 /90 /

OFC- :RIII:RSA0

Rlll:DRA

Rill:RA :SP:SA:AD :SP:D

GPA:DD

GPA:D

D0 q

NAME':BJHoltils:dd:CPaperiello :ABDavis :VMiller

CKammerer:SSchwartz:HDenton

J !ay r

DATE':4/30/90*-

4/30/90*

4/30/90* :5/3/90*

5/4/90* x.

$/4/90*

/96 c.Ap. w % 7

si e

APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State RadiationLControl Programs" were published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1987, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 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 II indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.

Good per_formance in 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,-i.e., those that fall under Category I indicators.

Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing or contributing to difficulties in Category 1-indicators.

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 ccmment made. -If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will-indicate that the program is adequate to protect the.

1 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 recei)t and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing tie-significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appro)riate or defer such offering.until the State's actions are examined and,t1eir 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 meeting with appropriate State ^ representatives.

Ho'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 c

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 the+ 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.

ENCLOSURE 1 I

1

?

-,- ?

4 l

cc w.

SUMMARY

OF THE ASSESSMENTS'AND COMMENTS FOR THE ILLINDIS RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 19, 1987 TO FEBRUARY 9, 1990 1

' Scope of Review This program review was conducted in accordance with the NRC Policy Statement,-

" Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"

published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1987. The administrative and technical aspects of the State's program were reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided in the Guidelines. The review included an examination of the program's funding and personnel resources; licensing, inspection and enforce,'ent activities; and incident response capabilities.

In addition, y.

' there was an evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire and field accompaniments of State inspectors.

n The review was conducted'in Springfield, Illinois, from January 29 through<

+

February 9, 1990.

Discussions with and field accompaniments of the State's regional inspection staff were conducted throughout the review )eriod prior to the formal' review. The review utilized a team' approach whici provided for a more in-depth examination of the Illinois program. The State was re by Terry Lash, Director, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety ~ (IDNS) presented o

and his management staff:

Paul Eastvold, Manager, Office of Radiation Safety; John Cooper : Manager, Office of Environmental Safety; Steve Collins,-

, ' Chief, Division of Radioactive Materials, Joe Klinger,-Head, Licensing Section;' and Bruce Sanza, Head, Inspection and D7forcement Section. The NRC was represented by B. J. Holt, Regional State Agreements Officer.

Assistance during.the review was provided by the following NRC personnel.

Reviews of selected compliance files and an accompaniment of a-State inspector at a medical facility were conducted by Robert'J. Doda, Region IV.

Reviews of sealed source and device evaluations were conducted by Steve Baggett and Tom Rich, HMSS.- Reviews of selected

-license files were conducted by a team'from the Region III Materials.

Licensing Section, George McCann, William Adam, Patricia Pelke, and i

Cassandra Fraizer. A review of the State's response to selected incidents involving agreement materials was conducted by Darrel Wiedeman, t

Region III. A review of the status of the Sheffield disposal site and

' the plans for licensing a low-level radioactive waste facility was y

. conducted by staff members from the Low-Level Waste Management and a'

Decommissioning Division,.NMSS, James Shaffner, John Starmer, Michael Tokar, Derek Widmayer and Lynn Deering.

o ENCLOSURE 2 t

\\1 b

i

i 1

c.

L 2

conclusion

- The~1111nois program for the control of agreement materials was found to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the.

- Comission's program.

Concerns in three Category I bdicators necessitated minor comments and recomendations to the State.

Previous NRC Findings The results of the'NRC's previous routine review were reported to Illinois in a letter dated January 2,1988. The Illinois program was found to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the programs of the NRC. The State was commended for its successful implementation of the Agreement State program.

It was noted that because Illi.nois hed adopted an inspf.ction frequency system more stringent than that of the NRC, a backlog of overdue inspections existed which-the State planned to reduce in 1988. ' No specific comments or recomendations

.for. program improvements were made.

Current Review Comments and Recommendations and Observations All 29, program indicators were reviewed and the State satisfies 26 of these indicators. Specific comments and recommendations for the remaining.

indicators are described ia Enclosure 2.

The State's plans for licensing-a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility were also reviewed. Observations on the administrative and techn'ical aspects of the plans are provided in Enclosure 3.

Comments and-Recommendations on the Illinois-Radiation Control Program Other Than Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal I.

LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS Status and Compatibility of. Regulations is a Category I indicator.

The following comment with our recommendation is of minor

' significance.

, Comment For regulations deemed to be a matter of compatibility by-the NRC, 1

State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable, but no later than three years. On February 11, 1987, the NRC amended its regulations to require licensees to notify the Commission upon filing of a petition for bankruptcy, and this amendment is a matter of compatibility.

It has not yet been adopted by Illinois.

1

e4

~

~

~

m, 4

, s.-

+;

W 4

Ib yy

+'

l

.t, i

c I

This. amendment has, however, been dre.fted by the4 IDNS and is~one.of j

t several pro)osed amendments to 32-I?,1. Adm. Code 330 which the State plans to pu)11sh in May-June,1990.

J Reccanendation We recommend that the State keep our Region III office informed of the

.+

status of the draft amendment, the date the amendment is proposed, and f

the date'the rule becomes effective.

\\

The State should also undertake, as= necessary, other rulemaking to maintain compatibility.

These-include:

u Rule 10 CFR Effective Date of State 1

Sumary Part Equivalent Rule for Compatibility Medical 35 April 1. 1990 Hisadministration

<y Decommissioning.

30,40,70 July 12, 1993

-Rule L

II.

COMPLIANCE i

' 1. - -Responses t-o Incidents and Alleged Incidents is a Category :I indicate. The following comment and recomendation is of_

l minor significance.

Comment Investigations'of incidents should include in-depth reviews of circumstances'and should be completed on a high priority basis.

1 Investigation or inspection =results-should be documented'and-enforcement action taken when appropriate. The State received 121 reports.of incidents during-the review period.

There are indications'that the State; in a.few cases, did not adequately

-follow-up on' incidents reported by licensees.

In one' incident

+

1 involving a missing moisture / density gauge, the State did not

. sI investigate the circumstances in sufficient detail to determine

.if' enforcement actions were warranted.- A review of the files and~a 1

subsequent discussion _with the licensee indicated that there.may K

have been violations associated.with the incident.

In an incident-1 occurring at a medical facility, the. State did not investigate the circumstances in sufficient detail to determine if the licensee's response was adequate.

In another incident occurring at a medical

' facility, the State did not' investigate the circumstances of the t

4

^'t !

i i

____.__.-.4,i--.,.

'O 4

incident during the next scheduled inspection to determine the cause and the measures taken to prevent reoccurrence, in an incident occurring at a manuf acturer's facility, the State did not cite the licensee for violations associated with the incident.

Three of the fotr incidents mentioned above were not required by Illinois' regula'. ions to be reported to the State.

The State has responded satisfactorily to a number of other reported incidents.

We do not consider the above examples to be indicative of the quality of the State's incident response efforts and we, therefore, do not consider t11s finding to be of major significance at this time.

Recommendation We recommend that the State reevaluate its procedures for incident response and modify them accordingly to insure that:

(1) inquiries of sufficient depth and scope are promptly made upon notification of an incident to determine the need for onsite investigations; (2) investigations, either onsite or not, include an in-depth evaluation of the circumstances; (3) investigat;on results are documented, and enforcement action taken as appropriate; (4) incidents, not promptly and (5) gated, are followed up during the next scheduled inspection; investi there is a system for tracking, documenting, and reporting incidents to insure proper actions by the licensee.

2.

Enforcement Procedures is a Category 1 indicator. The following comment and recommendation is of minor significance.

Comment The IDNS has been given authority to impose civil penalties authority, and is in the process of promulgating rules for implementing this authority.

Recommendation IDNS should complete the process for adopting implementing rules for civil penalties.

Summary Discussions with State Representatives Meetings were held with staff and management throughout the review to discuss findings relative to a particular subject area. Meetings summarizing the results of the regulatory review were held on February 9, 1990 initially with the technical staff of the Office of Radiation Safety and then with Terry Lash and his management staff. The findings were

c I

s 3

9.,;.

s

\\ -

t s

5 presented by B. J. Holt.and James Shaffner..Vandy Miller, Assistant

' Director, State Programs and Carl Paperiello, Deputy Director, Region III, 4

c, were also present and participated in the summary meetings.

?

I,.

1

\\

l_ ? _

3

. h.

4 1

...gt

t op

.y a

i.

3 OBSERVATIONS ON THE ILLIN0IS LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY LICENSING ACTIVITIES The low-level waste (LLW) licensing staff is' tasked with the 1.

~

review of two formal license applications within a 24 week time frame starting in October 1990. -Four.FTEs have been assigned to this project. Two

>ositions were vacant-at the time of the program review, but offers 1ad been extended to fill the vacancies. Each staff member, including the license coordinator, will be responsible-

-for reviewing a major technical area (s).in the license application.

IDNS plans to acquire-technical-assistance'from contractors.and have

..^

them perform much of the reviews. The current staffing level appears to fall short of what is needed to accomplish this task within the schedule provided.

Even with contractor support, it still appears that the effort of working with and overseeing the contractor's work will severely' tax this small of a staff.

, 2.

Discussions with the current staff indicated that they are qualified

- and knowledgeable in the. Illinois regulatory process and in the general requirements for licensing and regulation of low-level waste disposal.

The four full-time licensing staff will consist of three health physicists and one engineer. There is a need for broader staff experience. -The technical area-that is the most noteworthy in its absence from the staff's experience is geologic or earth sciences.

It is difficult to see how the staff will be able.to accomplish license review work or oversee contractor _'s work:in the technical areas of' hydrogeology, tectonics, geomorphology, etc.

3.

During the-program review, the staff was in the process of determining contractors for the license review effort.

Contracts for reviewing-the aren of hydrogeology and quality assurance had already been-let.

The staff was attempting.to contract with a large environmental or engineering firm with multidisciplinary expertise for the-remainder of the review. The firms who had submitted Statements of Qualifications ~did not have specialized. expertise in radwaste

. disposal, or even in hazardous or municipal waste disposal.

Neither did they appear to have experience in the review of permits or license applications. The NRC's experience with technical assistance contractors is that it is very difficult to educate design firms in the regulatory process. The Statement of Work intended for a technical assistance contractor should be detailed and specific with respect to contractor effort, performance standards, and expected work product.

ENCLOSURE 3 5k;

s

.g.

2 4.

The LLW licensing staff is in the process of-developing the tools needed for review of the two license applications. These include a licensing' plan, a licensing guide, and standard review plans.

The licensing guide-is the State's equivalent of-NUREG-1199. An w

attempt-has been made to incorporate the requirements of Part 606

'as-well'as Part 601 in the guide; however, there is minimum guidance ~

for the applicant with respect to. demonstrating compliance with the "com)1ete containment requirement" specified in Section 606.30(a)(4).

or tie dose limits in Parts 601 and 606. 'A standard review plan had not been drafted, however, the staff indicated that they will use NUREG-1200 for guidancc. NUREG-1200 does not contain procedure; for evaluating compliance with regulatory requirements equivalent to those contained in Part 606, 5.

In order to facilitate the license review, the LLW licensing staff

'will be receiving draft, sections,of the license application for review on a staggered schedule prior to submittal of the formal application. There are two concerns regarding this process:

(1-) The facility' design information is being submitted relatively late in the schedule, after facility operations and closure information are-submitted.

Changes required.in the design will affect operations and closure.

It would seem more logical that-

-facility design information be submitted and reviewed by-the staff / prior to review of the operations and~ closure information to enable the preliminary reviews to be the most useful and efficient. -- (2) The preliminary reviews of independent draf t sections of the application should not take the place of a more integrated approach to the review: process.

Since most of the studies are interrelated, they must be reviewed as a whole in order to'obtain a valid conclusion about the overall application.

6.

The LLW licensing staff has conducted a preliminary review of a draft section of the license application on site characteristics.

It' appeared, w'ithin the limits of the review team's expertiae, that the staff waicconducting a thoroi.gh review. The application, however, relied :.pvily in some areas on site characterization

' documents developed by 10W5 which contained conclusions about the site's ability to meet siting requirements. The LLW licensing staff may have difficulty. in conducting an independent evaluation of the application.

7.

The LLW licensing staff has not developed inspection and enforcement procedures specific to the regulatory requirements in Part 606.

Procedures should be developed for determining the means by which regulatory compliance can be achieved by the licensee and verified by IDNS.

t