ML20045G148
| ML20045G148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/17/1992 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Rogers, Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C965 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307120162 | |
| Download: ML20045G148 (10) | |
Text
~-
MEMOSIJiDUS'FOR: TEchairman Conur', iloner Rogers
. July 17,19g QUESTION 31 j
Comissitner Curtiss Comissioner Remick Comissioner de Planque FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
UTAH AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM REVIEW Attached is a staff report on our most recent review of the Utah Radiation Control Program. This report is being provided to you for information on an open issue with the Utah program.
The issue concerns a " land ownership exemption" that Utah granted to Envirocare, Inc., a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility licensee.
The State's rationale for this exemption is currently under review by the staff and due to the policy and precedent that might be established by this review, it may take several months before a Comission decision can be made and, therefore, we propose to handle this issue as a separate matter. The other comments on the facility are relatively minor in significance compared to the land ownership exemption.
The staff has determined that all other aspects of the Utah program are adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the Comission's program. We propose to issue staff findings of adequacy and ccmpatibility, contingent upon a satisfactory resolution to the land ownership
(
exemption.
In the essence of time, we intend to issue the attached report to the State of Utah within the next ten working days provided that we receive no direction from the Comission to the contrary.
Original SignO Sys James M.Taylof' lor James M. Tay Executive Director for Operations
Attachment:
As stated cc: SECY Distrbtion:
SA RF SSchwartz Utah File DIR RF VMiller RBernero EDO RF RWoodruff CKamerer RDoda, RIV
- See Previous Concurrences f SPjSA,:AD *_ f SP:DD*
fN,MS)
- N, MSS,*_fSP:D*
f
-,0,F C,,
SP:SA *
,,NME_!RWoodruff:kk !VMiller jSSchwartz ! RBangart
[RB,gnero ! CKamerer !
r e
DTE ! 06/30/92 I 06/17 /p2 I 06/24/92
!06/8 /92
!06/23/92!06/ 26/92 I
. 0J.C,,
EDS,,
,E,D, OGC N
p,hp 4_(,(/J_
t
_ ___ t NM,E,,! HLThotpson
! JMTa' lor DTE!06/h/92 l 0g'g92 l7/p/92 l
l l
l G:\\U1 MEMO.RLW 9307120162 930629 PDR STPRG ESGGEt y
j
(( 3 c
k Aeolication of " Guidelines for NRC-Review of Aoreement State Radiation Control Proorams" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were publis.hed in the Federal Reaister on June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guidelines provide 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 2 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 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 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 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 I 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 comment made.
If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and c
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 of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following 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 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 follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Commission will be informed of 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 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 Act, as amended.
t
(
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS FOR THE UTAH RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FEBRUARY 9. 1990 TO APRIL 17. 1992 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 Reoister on June 4,1987, and the internal procedures established by the NRC's State Agreements Program.
The State's program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided in the Guidelines. The review included inspector acccmpaniments, discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license and compliance files, and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
The fifth review meeting with Utah representatives was held during the period of April 13-17, 1992, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The State was represented by Mr. Larry Anderson, Mr. Dane Finerfrock, and Mr. Craig Jones, all from the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC). The NRC was represented by Mr. Robert J. Doda, Region IV State Agreements Officer, and Messrs. Joseph Kane, Fred Ross, and Robert Hogg, Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
Mr. Carlton Kammerer, Director of NRC's Office of State Programs, participated in upper level management discussions at the conclusion of the review.
A review of selected backup information in the DRC's license file for the Envirocare facility was conducted during April 13-15, 1992. A review of legislation and regulations, organization, management and administration, and personnel was conducted on April 14-15, 1992. A summary meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was held with Mr. Larry Anderson, Director, Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, on April 17, 1992, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
CONCLUSIONS 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 overall the Utah program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the Commission's program. However, this finding is contingent upon a satisfactory resolution of one significant Category I comment relating to a land ownership exemption (see comment number 2.A. below). The rest of the comments and recommendations developed during the review included only comments of minor significance concerning Category I indicators.
L
(
1 2
Status of Prooram Related to Previous NRC Findinos The previous NRC program review was concluded on February 9,1990, and comments and recommendations were sent to the State in a letter dated i
April 11, 1990. At that time, the program was found to be adequate to protect i
the public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of similar materials. Subsequent to the review, on May 9, 1990, the Agreement with Utah was amended to include authority for the State to regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Also, a special review of Utah's LLRW disposal program was conducted during February 19-22, i
1991, and a comment letter was sent to the State on April 23, 1991. The comments and recommendations have been satisfactorily closed out, except for several comments relating to the licensing action concluded on March 20, 1992, t
authorizing full operational status for the Envirocare LLRW disposal site near Clive, Utah.
t Current Review Comments 3
The Utah radiation control program satisfies the Guidelines in 27 of the 29 indicators. The State did not meet the Guidelines in two Category I indicators, Status and Compatibility of Regulations, and Technical Quality of Licensing Actions.
l Our comments and recommendations on licensing relate to the State review of the license application, the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), and the l
operational license amendment issued on March 20, 1992, for the Envirocare disposal site for LLRW near Clive, Utah. The State of Utah concluded, on May 8, 1990, an amended Agreement with the NRC to cover the authority for LLRW disposal.
Envirocare had been storing certain LLRW on site (e.g., uranium and thorium wastes from a rare earth facility). Utah has now authorized the disposal of these materials, with the license review process completed and an amendment to the Envirocare license becoming operational on March 20, 1992.
The comment and recommendation on regulations involves the adoption of a i
regulatory amendment on decommissioning, and in accordance with current NRC policy wherein the amendment is scheduled for early adoption, this comment is of minor significance.
1.
Status and Compatibility of Reculations (Cateaory I Indicator)
Comment The review of the State's radiation control regulations disclosed that one regulatory amendment, which is a matter of compatibility, had not been adopted by the State within a three-year period after adoption by j
the NRC. This amendment involved a decommissioning rule.
In accordance with current NRC practice, if the State has initiated rulemaking on the decommissioning rule, and the rulemaking is on track at the time of the review, then the finding is of minor significance.
i
[
t
-?
i
)
~'
?
3 Recommendation We recommend this amendment, and any others approaching the three-year period allowed after NRC adoption, be promulgated as effective State radiation control regulations.
2.
Technical Ouality of Licensino Actions (Cateoory I Indicator)
A.
Comment - Land Ownershio Exemotion: This is a repeat comment from previous reviews and discussions.
Previously, we discussed the State's exemptien of Envirocare from the requirements in R447-25-9 with regard to site ownership. This is an extension of an exemption originally granted to Envirocare which allowed development of a Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) disposal site on privately owned property. We recommended that the rationale for extension of the exemption for the disposal of byproduct, source and special nuclear material be documented and include how the performance objectives relating to long-term control, surveillance and maintenance would be met.
This should include an analysis of the adequacy of the surety funds to cover such long-term control and discussion of the difference between 30 versus 100 years post-closure requirements.
During this review, we obtained a draft of the State's rationale for land ownership exemption, and we recommended that this document be finalized and transmitted as soon as possible to the NRC for assessment.
We received the State's completed rational for the land ownership exemption on May 28, 1992. The completed rational is currently being reviewed in this Office; the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning; and the Office of General Counsel. Our assessment will be provided to you after we have completed our review.
B.
Comment - Completion of Sai'ety Evaluation Report The State of Utah had required Envirocare to submit additional hydrogeologic site characterization information and conduct additional ground water flow modeling to resolve the deficiencies in the license application related to ground water protection and site performance. The deficiencies were described in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) prepared by the DRC. An examination was performed of the licensee's submittal on hydrogeologic characterization and ground water flow modeling, and the subsequent DRC staff evaluations of this material.
Interviews were conducted with the staff of the Ground Water Protection Section of the Division of Water Quality. All of the issues
4 raised by the NRC regarding the quality of Envirocare's site hydrogeologic characterization, and the ensuing DRC staff evaluations are satisfactorily addressed. However, the Statement of Basis for the Ground Water Discharge Permit does not show how the site hydrogeologic characterization, ground water flow modeling, and ground water protection program leads to a conclusion that the State equivalent to the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objective covering off-site release of radioactivity is met.
We understand the State concluded that a dose assessment for the groundwater pathway was not necessary considering the effectiveness of the ground water protection program including:
(1) the emplacement of low-permeability clay liners and covers; (2) the extensive amount of required ground water monitoring; (3) the exclusion of most of the more mobile radionuclides from disposal; (4) the long ground water travel times for the remaining most mobile radionuclides in the site inventory (e.g., K-40);
(5) the very poor water quality at the site; and (6) the lack of credible off-site dose scenarios for ground water and related pathways.
Recommendation We recommend that the State provide documentation in their SER, Ground Water Discharge Permit Statement of Basis or other such document, how the site meets regulatory standards for the off-site release of radioactivity.
C.
Comment - Operatina Procedures The current Envirocare operating procedures, detailing specific directives to the licensee's employees and contractors, are not in the possession of the State at either the site office or the headquarters office.
It would be beneficial to the State, as information to aid inspections, to possess current operating procedures at one of the State locations.
Recommendation NRC recommends that an updated and controlled copy of the disposal operating procedures, including administrative, QA, radiation protection, and laboratory procedures, be provided by the licensee, and maintained at one of the State locations.
D.
Comment - Averacina of Weste Concentration Discussions with the State indicate the State may be required to make policy decisions relative to sampling and concentration averaging on radioactive materials received for demonstration of
5 compliance with Utah's regulations and license conditions. NRC recognizes the difficulty involved in the determination of concentrations for bulk shipments, and associated sampling procedures and protocols. The State policy on such determinations does not appear to be fully defined.
Recommendation We recommend that the State formalize their policy on concentration averaging and coordinate this policy with NRC draft guidance which has been coordinated with the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. The State should verify that the licensee's procedure for determining the concentrations of radionuclides in bulk shipments is consistent with State policy. The procedures should cover methods for establishing a conservative assumed density for incoming shipments of unknown density, for waste classification purposes.
E.
Comment - Placement of Waste The construction of the waste embankment in the LLRW cell is proceeding with the placement of waste at several different levels within the cell. The reason for the irregular mounding within the embankment is stated by Envirocare to be directed at isolating wastes from a specific generator. This may be the intended purpose, but any real benefits from this mounding practice is questionable.
The mounding practice now underway results in non-horizontal embankment levels that have irregularly positioned, rising slopes within the embankment that causes compaction of the waste in the slope areas to be more difficult. This condition introduces the potential for future differential settlements that could cause cracking of the cover and the introduction of small amounts of infiltration down to the waste.
During the review, we encouraged the licensee and the DRC to check available references for good embankment construction methods, where the insertion of internal, irregular slopes within an embankment would be shown to be a practice that should be avoided.
i In those cases where internal slopes cannot be avoided because of site specific conditions, certain measures (e.g., the notching of the existing slopen to permit full compaction of the embankment materials) may neec' to be taken.
Recommendation We recommend that DRC request the licensee to make an assessment of good construction practices, and make the necessary changes in the QA/QC Plan and field operations.
4
6 F.
. Comment - Definition of " Lift" The licensee has not defined the term " lift." Defining this term is considered necessary because of the mounding practice being followed in embankment construction and because of questions that will arise in determining the number of field control tests (e.g.,
see page 64 of QA/QC Plan) to be completed.
Recommendation We recomend that DRC request the licensee to define the term
" lift" in the QA/QC Plan in terms of surface area of placed embankment material.
G.
Comment - leachate Collection System The reviewers assessed the merits of a limited and separate leachate collection system, which was installed by the licensee in the NORM portion of LLRW cell. The DRC had not reviewed or approved this system prior to installation. Because of its design and limited extent, it is questionable whether any useful information could be obtained from monitoring of the limited system.
In addition, there is a concern for surface water to collect and flow along the perimeter of the monitoring pipe towards the waste, where the pipe penetrates the radon barrier.
Also, the licensee should be made aware that all modifications to the design of the cell must be approved by the State, before installation.
Recommendation We recommend that the State evaluate the installed limited leachate collection systein with a view toward requiring the licensee to seal the pipe with bentonite / cement and cutting the pipe off to avoid penetration of the radon barrier layer.
H.
Comment - Enoineerina Inscettion Durino Construction The review of Hixed Waste Disposal Cell was conducted primarily by the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste with input from the Division of Radiation Control. Utah now has a Memorandum of Understanding (M00) between the two Divisions (as suggested by NRC during a September 1991 meeting) that primarily addresses the reconciliation of differences between hazardous /LLRW regulations.
During early inspections related to the mixed waste cell (ground water sampling events and initial cell construction) deviations were found related to design plans. This situation resulted in the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste requiring Envirocare to
7 provide funds that permitted the Division to retain a consultant to perforn, full time inspection activities at the site over a period of several months (to inspect placement and construction of a multiple liner /leachate collection system).
In addition, the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste required Envirocare to retain the assistance of Law Engineering to oversee the installation of geomembranes. The experience gained by the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste indicates the need for full time inspection during the significant construction activities of the LLRW waste cell. We understand the DRC is actively recruiting fer a staff engineer at the present time to provide this oversight at the construction of the LRW cells.
Recommendation We recommend this staff position be filled at the earliest practical time.
I.
Comment - Hydraulic Conductivity of Clav Liner To demonstrate that the clay materials proposed for placement in the cell liner attain the field permeability of 1.0 x E-7 cm/sec that is required by Utah's license conditions, the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste required the running of double-ring infiltrometer tests. The licensee, prior to performing the infiltrometer tests, treated the proposed clay-materials with a deflocculent with the purpose of decreasing the permeability of the clay soil. The NRC reviewers were unable to establish in their discussions with both Envirocare and DRC, what testing and assessment of the long-term stability of the treated clays had been performed.
Recommendation We recommend that DRC request the licensee to perform an assessment of the long-term stability of the treated clay soils under anticipated waste disposal environmental conditions (e.g.,
leachate from placed waste), to demonstrate the long-term performance and engineering properties of the clay liner material.
3.
Observations and Commitments A.
The NRC reviewers noted during the review that the Envirocare ground water permit covers the LLRW cell and the uranium mill tailings cell, which is being licensed by the NRC.
The reviewers will convey the need for NRC's uranium mill tailings licensing group to coordinate their license review process with the State agencies responsible for the ground water discharge permit.
s 8
B.
Two important documents were developed by the State during this licensing action:
(1) QA/QC Manual for the LLRW cell, and (2) QA/QC Manual for the mixed waste cell. The NRC believes these two QA/QC Manuals provide valuable information on the development and construction of waste cells containing radioactive materials, which may be of use by the NRC or other Agreement States. The State has agreed to provide NRC with a copy of each manual.
C.
The NRC reviewers agreed to furnish the DRC with a copy of HRC's latest guidance on the averaging of LLRW for disposal.
D.
The DRC agreed to keep the NRC informed of the schedule for formally documenting its safety evaluation of the design and construction of the mixed waste disposal cell.
Summary Discussions with State Reoresentatives A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review was held with Mr. Larry Anderson, Director, Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, on April 17, 1992. The scope and findings of the review were discussed with Mr. Anderson and other Department staff members.
Mr. Anderson was informed of the significance of the one Category I finding regarding the exemption for land ownership. Mr. Anderson said the State would probably proceed directly with some means of finalizing the rationale for the land ownership exemption.
Mr. Anderson also expressed the State's appreciation for past NRC assistance and training for the Utah staff. He said the Department will continue to support the radiation control program, any NRC-sponsored training courses, and cooperative efforts with the NRC and other Agreement State Programs.
A closecut discussion with the RCP technical staff was conducted on April 16, 1992. The State was represented by Mr. Craig Jones, Mr. Dane Finerfrock, and other Division staff.
Several general and specific questions were raised by the State representatives.
The review findings regarding the Envirocare license and the SER were discussed at some length. A briefing was conducted by HRC representatives on NRC's new formats for the reporting of State incidents and State statistical information to the NRC.
, 0
,a W ~%
p e
5
- h
~s*****/
August 19, 1992 SECY-92-289 POLICY ISSUE For:
The Comissi(IRiormatiOrl)
From:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Subiect:
RESULTS OF THE 1992 REVIEW 0F THE NEBRASKA AGREEMENT PROGRAM PurDose:
To inform the Commission of the results of the recent review of the State of Nebraska's Agreement State radiation control program and the additional actions to be taken by staff.
Backaround:
Nebraska's Section 274b Agreement became effective on October 1, 1966. At the present time, the Nebraska Agreement is administered by two agencies within the State.
The Division of Radiological Health, Department of Health, (DOH) is responsible for regulation of byproduct, source and special nuclear material. The Department of Environmental Control (DEC) has the lead responsibility for regulating commercial low-level waste disposal facilities.
The previous NRC routine program review was concluded on June 15, 1990 and comments and recommendations were sent to the State in a letter dated July 30, 1990 (Enclosure 1). A follow-up review was performed on November 29, 1990 and results were provided to Nebraska in a letter dated l
January 17,1991 (Enclosure 2). At that time, the program
)
was found to be adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of similar materials.
0
$n a.
~l.
Q*.
Contact:
Kathleen N. Schneider, OSP E9
~~
504-2320 mo SECY NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AFTER THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 MEETING WITH THE STATE OF NEBRASl%.
/
The Commissioners 2
During the 1990 follow-up review, comments and recommendations from the previous reviews were addressed and the State's responses were evaluated for adequacy. All previous comments and recommendations had been closed out, except for a backlog of overdue inspections and an ongoing problem of vacancies in technical positions existing in the D0H.
Discussion:
On June 22-26, 1992 NRC staff conducted the regular routine review. The Nebraska's program on overdue inspections and ongoing vacancies had further deteriorated since the 1990 follow-up review. These recent observations precluded the staff from making a finding that the Nebraska program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program for regulation of similar materials.
The staff has serious concerns regarding the status of the Nebraska's inspection program. At the time of the review, Nebraska reported 82 of the State's 138 licenses were overdue for inspection. Twenty of the Priority I and II inspections were overdue by more than 50% of their respective inspection intervals, a criterion used by the staff to determine if an inspection is significantly overdue.
Staffing is still a serious problem in DOH and is the reason given for the inspection backlog. DOH is below NRC guidelines for the agreement material program due to two experienced staff members recently leaving the program. DOH is currently recruiting for four technical positions with no success thus far.
i It is the Office of State Programs' practice to elevate serious NRC concerns with an Agreement State Program to upper State management. Senior Region IV and State Programs' management will meet with Dr. Mark Horton, Director, DOH, to convey the strength of our findings and concerns and personally deliver the results of the review contained in the letter (Enclosure 3) on September 17, 1992.
We are arranging for the Nebraska State Liaison Officer to also attend the meeting with Dr. Horton. A copy of the letter will also be delivered to Mr. Randy Wood, Director, DEC, on September 17, 1992.
The Commissioners 3
NRC will request that a written response including an action plan be provided within a month.
O V
YA'"')
James M. Taylor Executive Director
-s
\\
for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Letter dated July 30, 1990 regarding 1990 Program Review 2.
Letter dated January 17, 1991 regarding 1991 follow-up Review 3.
Letter regarding 1992 Program Review t
DISTRIBUTION:
Comissioners OGC i
I se* H 4
+p 9'o, UNITED STATES
['., ')
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wassmcioN. D. c. rosss s
%.".....o#
July 30,1990 Gregg F. Wright. H.D.
Director Department of Health 301 Centennial Hall South P.O. Box 95007 Lincoln, NE 68509 Mr. Dennis Grams, Director Department of Environmental Control P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, NE 6B509
Dear Dr. Wright and Mr. Grams:
This letter relates to the discussion Robert J. Doda, Region IV State Gary Rex, State Liaison Officer, Governor's Energy Office an Norm Thorson, Chairman, Central Interstate Compact Comission, on June 15, 1990, following our 1990 review of the Nebraska radiation control program for agreement materials.
NRC representatives Kathleen Schneider, State Programs, and John Greeves and James Shaffner Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, also participated in the review during June 11-15, 1990.
As we discussed in that meeting, our review of the State's program identified serious problems which prevented the hRC staff from making a finding that the State's radiation control program for the regulation of and compatible with the Comission's program. agreement materials (Details in Enclosure 1.)
On Jur,e 29, 1990 the sumary meeting, followinGovernor Orr responded to the coments we provided at control program (Enclosure 2)g our review of the Nebraska radiation This letter is fully responsive to our concerns and provides actions to all of the comments discussed at the meeting. Since we believe these actions will produce positive and direct improvements in the Nebraska formal review findings contained in Enclosure 1 to this letter as noted in Chairman Carr's recent letter to Governor Orr, we plan toHowever, conduct a foll u-up review within six months to determine the progress of the actions undertaken by both Departments for the agreement materials program.
Further, the June 29 letter from Governor Orr revised the identification of contacts within Nebraska for the various elements of the radiation control programs.
both agencies and make one determination as to the adequacy an ENCLOSURE 1
i I
?
Dr. Gregg F. Wright and JUL t o 197) 11r. Dennis Grams 2
9 compatibility of the State of Nebraska's program for administering the f
274b agreement. We expect that your departments will coordinate a combined response to issues which evolve during future reviews of the Nebraska program.
i 1 appreciate the responsiveness of'the State of Nebraska and the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Doda and the other NRC reviewers during the review meeting. An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreenent State programs is enclosed as i.
Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be rade available for review.
Sincerely, original signed by Carlton Kammerer Carlton Kammerer, Director State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As steted t
et w/erc15:
J. ti. Teylor, Executive Director
(
for Operations R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Regior. IV Marold R. Borchert, Director Division of Radiological Health Jay D. Ringenberg tlFil Program Manager i
State Liaison Officcr PJC Public Document Room State Public Document Room I
1 f
I l
4 4
ENCLOSURE 1
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS FOR THE hEERA5KA RADI ATION CONTROL PROGRAM JULY 1,1988 TO JUhE 15. 1990 Scope of Review l
This program review was conducted in accordance with the Commission'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 States Program.
The State's program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided in the Guidelines. The review included inspector accompaniments, discussions with program management and staff,' technical evaluation of selected license and compliance files, and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NEC cuestionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
The 24th Regulatory Program Review meeting with Nebraska representatives was held during the period of June 11-15, 1090 in Lincoln, Nebraska. The State vas represented by Harry Borchert and Jay Ringenberg. The NRC was represented by Robert Doda, Region IV State Agreements Officer, Kathleen Schneider, State Programs, James Shaffner and John Greeves Low-level Maste Mana5crent and Deconmissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. A review of selected license and compliance files was conducted turing June 13-14, 1990. A review of legislaticn and regulations, organization, management and administration, and personnel was conducted on June 12, 1990. A summary meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was held with Dennis Grams, Director, Department of Environmental Control (DEC) and Dr. Gregg Wright, Director, Department of Health (DOH) on June 15, 1990. Other Nebraska officials present at the sunnary meeting included Norm Thorson, Chairman, Central Interstate Compact Commission, Gary Eex, State Liaison Officer, Gover'nor's Energy Office, Department attorneys, and other Department staff.
Conclusion Our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the State of Nebraska disclosed serious problems which prevent the staff frcm making a finding that the Nebraska program for the regulation of agreement raterials is adequate to protect public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of similar materials. An early follow-up review of Nebraska's radiation control program is considered a necessity.
Status of Program Related to Previous NRC Findings The previous NRC program review was concluded on July 1,1988, and comments and recommendations were sent to the State in a letter dated August 4, 1988.
At that tirce, the program was found to be adequate to protect the public bealth and safety; however, a finding of compatibility could not be made eue to several compatibility regulations that had not been adopted by the State within the three-year period allowed by NRC guidelines. The State's response to NRC ccmments and recommendations were sent by the State en June 7,1990.
~
. 0 The comments and recomendations from the previous program review were followed up and the State's responses were evaluated for adequacy. None of the previous comments and recommendations have been satisfactorily closed out.
The previous coments involved out-of-date regulations, an unclear division of authorities for the Nebraska LLRW disposal program, and a low staffing level. The NRC review team focused strongly on these three subject areas and on the State's overall program for regulation of the LLRW disposal site.
Current Review Comments and Recommendations The Nebraska radiation control program satisfies the Guidelines in 20 of the 29 indicators. The State did not meet the Guidelines in nine areas as indicated in the comments and recommendations to follow. Four of the areas directly impact ongoing programatic responsibilitics for materials currently regulated by the fiebraska program.
(These coments are considered significant.) Note: We are not requesting further answers from the State recarding the following recomendations, since Governor Orr has already respended(June 29,1990) to all of the connents from our program review. We will confirn progress on all State actions during a follow-up review of the hebraska radiation control program within six months.
1.
Radiation Control program other than the Comercial Disposal of LLRW 1.
Status and Cortpatibility of Regulations (Category I indicator)
Coment The review of the State's radiation control regulations disclosed that 10 regulatory amendments, which are matters of compatibility, have not been adopted by the State within a three-year period after adoption by the NRC. This is a contiruation of the same problem found during the previous two reviews in August 1906 and July 1988.
Since the last review in July 1988, the Division has worked on updating the State's regulations and all sections are essentially complete. A public hearing was held on December 19, 1988. NRC State Agreements staff members have provided support to the Division during the revision process. All regulations relating to NRC matters of compatibility have now been included in this proposed revision. Even though it appears that the revision process is nearing completion, an effective date for the revised regulations is not known. It should be noted that the State does have compatible LLRW regulations (DEC Title 194). The balance of the State's radiation control regulations are contained in Title 180 of the DOH regulations.
. Recommendation We recommend that the State complete the revision process so that the revised regulations become effective at an early date, such that a finding of compatibility can be made for the Nebraska radiation control program.
2.
SteffinoLevel(Catecory IIIndicator)
Coment The review disclosed that the current staffing level for the DOH radiation control program is.81 FTE/200 licenses, which is well below the NRC recommended range of 1.0 to 1.5 FTE/100 licenses.
This is a decrease from the previous review where the Division had
.91 FTE/100 licenses..This level is not sufficient to maintain a viable program.
The Division is also faced with a significant increase in health physics work relating to the LLRW disposal site that is being developed in Nebraska.
The low staffing level for agreement materials is affecting other program indicators. For example, at the present time, the Division has 64 backlogged licensing actions. These include 24 new and renewal license applications and 39 amendment requests.
Also, a significant back log of overdue inspections has developed (see following comment).
Recomendation We recomend the Division imediately increase its staffing level for the agreement materials program into the NRC's recomended range of 1.0 to 1.5 FTE/100 licenses. We also recommend that a project manager be cbtained for the radiological regulatory activities that must be undertaken by DOH during the licensing process for the LLRW disposal site that is currently being developed in the State.
3.
Status of Inspection Program (Category I Indicator)
Comment During this review, we found a total of 93 licenses overdue for inspecticn, with 34 of these overdue inspections representing priority I and priority II licenses.
i Our review disclosed that 10 priority I and priority 11 licenses were overdue for inspection by more than 50% of the inspection frequency.
is a comment of major significan We believe this increased since the previous rev.ce because the backlog has i
ins iew(25upto93totaleverdue (2)pections). Reasons for the backlog include:
(1) low staffing a contamination incident requiring significant staff response,
effort, (3) a major licensing action (a 5 MC: irradiator),
(4) emergency drills at the State's two reactor facilities, and (5) increasing LLRW activities which requires a diversion of existing limited staff resources.
Recommendation Inspections of major licensees must be brought up to date as soon as possible and a program should be implemented to stabilize and reduce the list of priority I and II inspections that are overdue for inspection.
j 4.
Enforcement Procedures (Catecory I Indicator)
Corrent With respect to recent inspection activities at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln (UNL) (inspection of May 1988), we noted several rounds of enforcement correspondence and the discussion of a high radiation issue regarding an area where the radiation dose could exceed 100 millirem in an hour.
The State inspection icentified 12 violations, 5 of which were in tne training area.
A thorough report of the ir.spection was prepared by the State irdicating that follow-up audits of individual laboratories should be performed by the State during the succeeding next six months. Formal correspendence reporting the inspection findings was sent promptly to the University.
In a nine-page letter, the University took issue with a number of these violations and they have repeatedly contested making certain corrections in their radiation control program. The controversy over a high radiation area for a device that uses a beam of radiation continues to this day, over two years af ter the inspection.
The safety hazard appears to have been corrected by the University but the question relating to interpretaticn of the regulatory requirement concerning a high-radiation area remains unresolved.
A second problem at UNL concerns a chemical explosion (C-14 tapped materials) incident that occurred on July 12, 1989.
Although the safety hazards of the incident were promptly responded to by the University and the Division staff, the incident has not yet been closed out and the University's final report has not yet been received by the Division.
Other facts relating to this licensee include: (1)UNLis overdue for inspection by over one year, and (2) The UNL license has been in timely renewal for over one year.
1
5-Recomendation Since the regulatory actions at UNL are heavily dependent upon an adequate staff, we recommend that the State augment its radiation control staff and bring to an early conclusion all the outstanding regulatory actions at UNL. These are significar.t enforcement matters that need to be brought to a conclusion promptly. The University is a major licensee that needs positive regulatory attention. Department management oversight for this licensee is needed to assure the closing out of the last inspection and incident, work on the renewal application, and the resumption of inspections, l
II. Radiation Control Program for the Commercial Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) 3.
Legal Authority (Category I Indicator)
Comment During the 1988 review of the Nebraska review, we commented on the overlapping authorities and responsibilities for the regulation of a LLFW disposal site.
It appeared at that time to be unclear and not well defined.
(This continues to be a problem to date.) Since our review, the State agencies involved, DEC and DOH signed an MOU in May 1989 delineating the respersibility for the regulation involving both agencies. During our review, a draft revision of that MOU was given to NRC, which when signed by the party agencies, will designate DEC as the lead agency with the responsibility for the regulation of the disposal facility and DOH as a participant. Since the MOU (both the one in existence and the draf t MOV) designates DEC as an agency also irvolved in administering the 274b agreement signed by the State of Nebraska, NRC will work with both departments to determine the status of the interrelated agreement materials program in the State of Nebraska. NRC will expect to conduct one review encompassing both agencies and make one determination as to the adequacy and compatibility of the State of Nebraska's program for administrating the 274b agreement.
Recorcendation We recomend the proposed MOU be finalized as soon as possible and a copy transmitted to the NRC.
2.
Organization (Category II Indicator)
Coment According to NRC guidelines an Agreement State program should be organized to achieve a high degree of efficiency in supervision, i
6-work functions, and communications. The Nebraska program does not meet this indicator. Management within DOH does not adequately assess and control Agreement State activities.
It appears that the NRC agreement is not taken seriously as is indicated by the repeated lack of timely revisions to update the regulations and the lack of a timely response to NRC's previous comments. Program policies are being set at lower levels of management, and sometimes are in conflict with directions from higher level management. Upper level management direction and oversight is not adequate, and instances were noted where management directives were not followed.
Low-level waste work functions are not proceeding well due to unresolved conflict between DOH and DEC at the first level of supervision.
Ccmmunications are poor between DEC and DOH as indicated by the lack of input by DEC on the responses to the NRC questionnaire and unawareness within DEC of NRC's programs for exchange of information, technical assistance, and training.
Fecommendation Senior level management should set clear policies and ensure that they are implemented. Senior level management should identify significant conflicts early on and resolve them quickly.
Putting an MOV in place alone will not solve the problem. Management follow-up is needed. periodic meetings of upper level DEC and DOH managenent should be considered as a means to ensure that problems receive appropriate management attention and are resolved in a timely fashion. Examples of specific areas needing attention are found in the following comments.
3.
Eudcet (Catecory 11 Indicator)
Conment Operating funds should be sufficient to support program needs.
Supplementary funds may be obtained through contracts. Long range planning is lacking in DOH. Use of a contractor has not been considered in planning low-level waste activities at DOH even though funding for this purpose is available from DEC according to the MOU. DEC seems to be well funded in the LLRW area and is responsible for providing funding to DOH upon request.
However, no requests were made by DOH for budgetary assistance.
Reconnendation Full utilization should be made by DOH of existing budgetary resources. DEC and DOH management should monitor this.
p
'og UNITED STATES
[
g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,
es WASeglNGTON, D. C. 30886 e,
e i
^
January 17, 1991 Gregg F. Wright, M.D.
Director Department of Health 301 Centennial Hall South l
P.O. Box 95007 i
Lincoln, NE 68509 Mr. Dennis Grams, Director Department of Environmental Control P.O. Box 98922 j
i Lincoln, NE 6B509
Dear Dr. Wright and Mr. Grams-:
L This is to confirm the separate discussions Messrs. V. L.. Miller,
(
R. J. Doda, and J. A. Shaffner held with each of you and your staff
_i terbers on Neverber 28 and 29,1990 after our follow-up review of the State's radiation control program.
1 Governor Orr wrote us on November 19, 1990 just prior to our follow-up review and provided the current status of all program areas identified.
as needing improvement. We thank the Governor for this very helpful.
update of State actions.
We were pleased to note the many improvements that have taken place in your program. Especiall Department of Health's (y noteworthy, was the completion of the DOH) radiation control regulations on Noverber 25, 1990 to achieve compatibility with the NRC's regulations.
As a result of'our review, we find that the State's program for regulating agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program.
We are also pleased with the improvement in the overall inspection and enforcement actions related to the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
t We agree with your staff that the-repeated violations at the University need to be corrected and resolved before full confidence is regained in the responsibilities afforded under the University's broad. license for radioactive materials. The use of a consultant for conducting the last inspection at the University during Augtst 1990 is an appropriate approach for resolving'this kind of problem. This effort will be closely followed in the months to come by our Region 1Y staff.
.)
ENCLOSURE 2
Letter to Dr. Wright and Mr. Grams JAN 17 1991 We were also pleased that the Department of Environmental Control (DEC) has provided funding for the acting Health Physics Section Chief and two additional Health Physicists for the Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) program. The appointment of this full time Health Physics Section Chief has, in our opinion, been an important factor in the improvements found during this review. The coordination of LLRW responsibilities has allowed the Division of Radiological Health in DOH to be kept fully involved in l
the LLRW license review process. We believe both Departments will continue to benefit from the organizational arrangements currently in place. The memorandum of understanding between DOH and DEC provides the basis for this working arrangement.
Ve note that a significant problem continues to exist where the Division of Radiological Health in DOH is still understaffed and well relow NRC guioelines for Agreement Material Programs. Two current staff cper.ings in the Division continue to exist despite active recruiting.
We believe that until this step is concluded, the State will not be able te address the deficiencies previously noted regarding the inspection program. With regard to the inspection backlog, the Division knows what is needed to aedress the problem in terms of maintenance inspections and catch-up inspections, and a plan is in place to eliminate the backlog. However, because of the above shortage of staff, the resources are net available to work on the elimination of the inspection backlog.
The State should continue its recruiting effort. NRC will give priority to f;ebraska to provide training to personnel hired for these positions.
If the State continues to be unsuccessful in recruiting personnel, we recemend an examination be made to determine the underlying reasons and take appropriate measures to improve the recruiting process.
As we discussed, we are pleased with the excellent progress the State has made, and we look forward to continuing to work with the State.
Enclosure I contains a summary of the follow-up review.
I appreciate the responsiveness of the State of Nebraska and the courtesy and cocperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Doda and the other hRC reviewers during the review meeting. An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is enclosed as Enclosure 2.
Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for review.
Sincerely,
~ '* m C[rlton Kamerer, Director StateProgrpns Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
(seenextpage)
~ -..
\\
Letter to Dr. Wright and Mr. Grams JAN 2 71991.
t w/ enclosures:
J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations t
R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator Region'IV e
Harold R. Borchert, Director Div.sion of Radiological Health Jay D. Ringenberg LLRW Program Manager State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room l
i 4
i i
i 9
l' t
i
ENCLOSURE 1 STAFF PEPORT AND FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION OF THE NEBRASKA CONTROL PROGRAM TOR THE PERIOD JUNE 15, 1990 TO NOVEMBER 29, 1990 The follow-up review to the 24th. regulatory program review meeting with Nebraska representatives was held during the period November 26-29, 1990. The State was represented by Harold Borchert, Director, Division of Radiological Health; Jay Ringenberg, Manager, Low Level Radioactive Waste Section; and Tom Lamberson, State Liaison Officer. The review of the program also inclufed discussions with upper level managers within the Department of Healtn (DOH) and the Department of Environmental Control (DEC).
The purpose of the follow-up review was to evaluate the corrective actions taken by the State in response to the findings of the Nebraska routine review of June 15, 1990, and to assess the current status of the adequacy and compatibility of the program.
CONCLUSIONS The results of our review indicate the State's program for regulating agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the Commission's program. Significant improvements were found in the materials program, particularly in the State's ranagerent practices, tudget allotments, technical procedures, acministrative procedures, enforcement procedures, and radiation control regulations. A continuing problem remains in filling several technical vacancies within the Division of Radiological Health.
Without the filling of these vacancies, the Division does not have the resources to address a backlog of overdue inspections.
SDPHY DISCUSSION WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVES A surnary meeting to present the results of the follow-up review was held on November 29, 1990, by Mr. R. Doda, Mr. V. Miller, and Mr. J. Shaffner with Dr. Gregg Wright, Director, Department of Health, and Mr. Dennis Grams, Director, Department of Environmental Control.
The surnary meeting was also attended by Mr. Tom Lamberson.
Mr. Richard Beck, Mr. Burk Casari, Mr. Harold Borchert, Mr. Jay Ringenberg, Ms. Cheryl Rogers, and Ms. Carla Felix.
The State was congratulated on the improvements in the program in response to the NRC findings during the June 15, 1990 review.
In particular, the staff was praised for the completion of the revision of the State's radiation control regulations and for rcogement coordination under the MOU between DOH and DEC.
The State's enforcement actions against the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and the findings of the unannounced inspection in August 1990 were discussed. The NRC agreed with the State that repeated violations 1
found in the University's safety program stem from inadequate
{
l
. i procedures and management controls. The NRC staff concurred with the State's cecision to require specific user licenses if the University is unable to correct the deficiencies in its management controls under the broad license currently in place.
The Division of Radiological Health in DOH is still understaffed and well below NRC guidelines for Agreement Material Programs.
Also, the inspection backlog rer,ains unchanged from the review of June 15, 1990.
~
Two current staff openings in the Division continue to exist despite active recruiting.
PROGRAM CHANGES RELATED.TO JUNE 15, 1990, REVIEW FINDINGS I
I.
Radiation control precram other than the Corrercial. Disposal of LLRW A.
Status ar.d Compatibility of Reculations.(Catecory.I Indicator) 1 Previous Recommendation We recomend that the State complete the revision process so that the reviseo regulations become effective at an early date, such that a finding of compatibility can be made for the Nebraska radiation control program.
Present Status The Nebraska Department of Health regulations for the control of i
radiation were revised and became effective on November 25, 1990.
With this revision, Nebraska's regulations are compatible with the NRC regulations.
l B.
Staffino Level (Catgor1ILIndicator)
Previous Rgonrendation We recommend the Division irrediately increase its staffing level for the agreement materials program into the NRC's l
recomended range of 1.0 to 1.5 FTE/100 licenses. We also t
recomend that a project manager be obtained for the.
l radiological regulatory activities that must be undertaken by DOH during the licensing process for the LLRW disposal site that is currently being developed in the State.
Present Status l
Staffing is still a serious problem in DOH.
Internally they have rade a couple of key reassignments as a short term fix such as assigning one of their staff members as acting project renager with DEC, which is working out in an excellent manner, and another member being moved from the i
X-ray group to the Licensing and Inspection Group. DOH is currently recruiting for two positions with no success thus far.
I
Inclosure 1,,
C.
Status cf Inspection Procram (Cateoory i Indicator)
Previous Recommendation Inspection of major licensees must be brought up to date as soon as possible and a program should be implemented to stabilize and reduce the list of Priority I and II inspections that are overdue for inspection.
Present Status To date, the Division of Radiological Health has not been able to reduce the backlog of inspections due. The reassignrent and retraining of one individual within the Division, although a step in the right direction, is not enough to acdress this problem fully.
Recruittent of the two additional positions already authorized within the Division is a necessity.
The current inspection backlog for Priority I and II inspections stands at 22.
Eleven of these are overdue by more than 50 percent of their inspection interval, approximately the same as found in the last review. The NRC staff considered the overall backlog, the number of routine inspections that need to be done to maintain the inspection prt 1 ram, and the staff resources that will be available to the State. We concluded that the backlog can be eliminated by adding the additionel staff, as mentioned above.
The Division has a plan to address the inspection backlog; however, it can only be fully implemented by the additional staff currently being recruited.
D.
Enforcement Procedures (Catecory 1 Indicator)
Previous Recommendation Since the regulatory actions at the University of Nebrasta at Lincoln (UNL) are heavily dependent upon an adequate staff, we recommend that the State 3ugment its radiation control staff and bring to an early conclusion all the outstanding regulatory actions at UNL. These are significant enforcement ratters that need to be brought to a conclusion promptly.
The University is a major licensee that needs positive regulatory attention. Departrent management oversight for this licensee is needed to assure the closing out of the last inspection and incident, work on the renewal application, and the resumption of inspections.
Inclosure 1
-4
,Present Status Much progress has been made regarding inspection and enforcerent activities at UNL.
The 1988 UNL inspection follow up has been completed by a health physics consultant and a letter of noncompliance was sent to the licensee.
Additionally, the chemical explosion investigation was completed by a health physics consultant and a letter of noncompliance was sent to the licensee. A current inspection was also completed and a letter of noncompliance was sent to the licensee.
Future plans include contracting with a health physics consultant to assist with the license renewal review as well as a follow-up inspection. These licensing and inspection activities will be conducted within the next few months.
The State has asked the consultant to provide progress reports during the transitien period, and plans to have frequent discussions with the UNL staff during the application development and review, including teetings with ranagement.
Corrective actions on items of noncompliance currently r,ct resolved are also being required of UNL and the State is keeping the enforcement corresponderce current.
11.
Radiation Control Procram for the Commercial Disposal of low-level Facicactive haste (LLRw)
A.
Leoal Authority (Category I Indicator)
Previous Recommendation We recorrend the proposed NOU be finalized as soon as possible and a copy transmitted to the NRC.
present Status An MOU was finalized June 29, 1990. Both the DOH and DEC seem to be working well under the terms of the MOU. Both Departments worked cooperatively in completing a preacceptance review of the LLRW site application and forwarding a comprehensive set of application omissions to the applicant. Director's meetings among top management in each department occur on a regular basis to discuss and resolve issues defined by the working staff.
Inclosure 1.
B.
Orcantration (Catecory 11 Indicator)
Previous Recommendation Senior level management should set clear policies and ensure that they are implemented. Senior level management should identify significant conflicts early on and resolve them quickly. Putting an HOU in place alone will not solve the problem. Management follow-up is needed. Periodic meetings of upper level DEC and DOH management should be considered as a means to ensure that problems receive appropriate management attention and are resolved in a timely fashion.
Present Status Senior mansgement in both DOH and DEC is totally involved in the Agreement Materials Program. Several management problems in the LLRW program identified during the June 1990 program review have been resolved. Both Departments deserve a lot of credit for this success. This success can be attributed to the assignrrent of a DOH project manager to DEC to coordinate en the LLRW program, the day-to-day involvement by the State Liaison Officer and the regular joint meetings being held by the Department Directors and staff to coordinate efforts.
C.
Budcet (Catecory II Indicator)
Previous Recomendation Full utilization should be made by DOH of existing budgetary resources.
DEC and DOH managenent should monitor this.
Present Status DOH and DEC are working as a team to implement a budget which gets the maximum results from resources expended. DEC is funding for and has management oversight for several consultant groups. DEC has also funded two additional DOH Health Physicists for the LLRW program. However DOH is experiencing difficulty filling the positions.
D.
Technical and Administrative Procedures (Catecory II Indicators)
Previous Recommendation We recorrnend prioritizing resources so that the procedures necessary to begin the licensing review are in place when the application is received. Additionally it is suggested that guidelines on conflict of interest and criteria for funding levels for work outside of DEC be developed.
present Status Procedures for licensing review have been developed (July 18, 1990). The procedures. should eliminate the potential for conflict of interest because of the involvement of many different entities in the decisionmaking process.
The means for funding LLRW work in other State agencies, particularly DOH, has been established.
/
E.
Menacement (Catecory II Indicator)
Previous Recommendation We recommend DOH take steps to enable filling the position of LLRW project manager as soon as possible. An acceptable alternative way be to accept a partially qualified individual with a goal to fully qualify such a person through supplementary training.
Additionally, the State may wish to evaluate progress in filling key positions. Senior level management should take a stronger role in filling key positions.
The State should consider adding an earth sciences staff member to the LLRW team.
Present Status Staffing problems in LLRW have been addressed through the assignmert of a full time DOH project manager with an earth sciences background. LLRW staff is also supplemented by other State technical experts, as needed, during the review process. The staffing shift in the Division to the LLRW program has caused additional staffing problems in the Agreements Materials Program however. Recruitment of the two additional positions, already authorized, within the Division is a necessity.
ENCLOSURE 2 APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF 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 Policy Statement. The GuidelTnes provice F indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas. Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreerent 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 problers exist in several Category I indicator areas, then the need for 1rprovements may be critical.
Category II 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 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 I indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the follcwing manner.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of cach comment made.
If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's pro 5 ram.
If one or more significant Category I coments 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 of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactery in addressing the significant Category I corrents, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and corpatibility as appropriate or defer such effering until the State's 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 follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Comission will be inforred of 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 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 ray institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreerent in accordance with Section 274j of the Act, as arended.
1
+
f i
e rsc J
'o UNITED STATES
["
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 l
L
,9 L
- ..,+
i l
f Mark B. Horton, M.D.
Director Department of Health 301 Centennial Mall South 1'
P. O. Box 95007 Lincoln, NE 68509 j
a Randy Wood, Director
~
Department of Environmental Control l
P. O. Box 98922 Lincoln, NE 68509 f
Dear Dr. Horton and Mr. Wood:
This is to confirm the separate discussions Robert J. Doda held with each of you and you: staff members during June 22-26, 1992, regarding our 1992 review of the State's radiation control program.
F As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of i
information between the NRC and the State of Nebraska, we have identified significant problems in two program areas which need to be addressed prior to our offering a finding that the Nebraska program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program for regulation of similar materials.
t Of particular concern is the status of your inspection program. At the time of the review, your staff reported that 82 of the State's 138 licenses were I
overdue for inspection.
Twenty of the Priority I and II inspections were overdue by more than 50% of their respective inspection intervals, a criterion used by the NRC to determine if a license is significantly overdue. The reasons given for the inspection backlog are a continuing low staffing ratio, the recent loss of two experienced staff members, and the training of new i
personnel. The NRC recognizes the difficulty any regulatory agency faces in trying to implement its program with a limited number of adequately trained personnel. However, the'. inspection of licensed operations is essential to assuring that activities are being conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements and good safety practices. This has.a direct bearing on the 1
responsibilities'of any radiation control program, i.e., the protection of the public health and safety. We strongly urge the Division of Radiological Health to devote more effort to the. inspection program.
I i
t f
f i
ENCLOSURE 3 l
Mark B. Horton and Randy Wood 2
We note that a significant problem continues to exist where the Division of Radiological Health in the Department of Health (D0H) is still understaffed and well below NRC guidelines for agreement material programs.
Four current staff openings in the Division continue to exist despite active recruiting. We believe that unless these vacancies are filled expeditiously, the State will not be able to address the deficiencies noted in the inspection program. With i
regard to the inspection backlog, the Division has a plan in place to eliminate the backlog.
However, because of the above shortage of staff, the resources are not available to work on the elimination of the inspection backlog.
We believe the State should take immediate alternative steps to address this problem.
NRC will give priority to Nebraska to provide training to personnel hired for these positions.
A significant portion of time during the review was spent on matters relating to U.S. Ecology's application for disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) containing byproduct, source and special nuclear materials at its proposed disposal site in Boyd County.
The State's staff for the regulation of LLRW provided backup information about the review of this license application to the NRC's staff reviewer during the program review.
We are pleased that the Department of Environmental Control (DEC) is providing funding for the Health Physics Section Chief and three additional positions within the DOH for the LLRW program. The appointment of this full time Health Physics Section Chief has been an important factor in the improvements found i
in DEC/D0H cooperation.
The coordination of LLRW responsibilities has allowed the Division of Radiological Health in 00H to be kept fully involved in the LLRW license review process.
We believe both Departments will continue to benefit from the organizational arrangements currently in place.
The memorandum of understanding between DOH and DEC provides the basis for this working arrangement.
! contains an explanation of our policies and practices for revit ing Agreement State programs. is a summary of the review i
findings which were discussed with Mr. Wood on June 24, 1992, and Dr. Hort9n j
on June 26, 1992.
We request specific responses from the State on the comments in Enclosure 2.
r T
b 4
t
't i
Mark B. Horton and Randy Wood 3
I appreciate the responsiveness of the State of Nebraska and the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Doda during the review meetings. Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room'or to otherwise be made available for review.
~ Sincerely, j
i 1.
arl on Kammarer, Director Office of State Programs i
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls:
J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC J. L. Milhoan, Regional Administrator-Region IV Harold R. Borchert, Director Division of Radiological Health Jay D. Ringenberg
(
LLRW Program Manager State Liaison Officer i
NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room i
i
- l I
1
Mark B. Horton and Randy Wood 3
I appreciate the responsiveness of the State of Nebraska and the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff cxtended to Mr. Doda during the review meetings. Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for review.
t Sincerely, e
Carlton Kammerer, Director i
Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls:
J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC J. L. Milhoan, Regional Administrator Region IV Harold R. Borchert, Director Division of Radiological Health Jay D. Ringenberg LLRW Program Manager State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room bec w/encls:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque Distribution:
SA RF JLMilhoan RWoodruff DIR RF LJCallan RBlanton EDO RF JTGilland SDroggitis 1
CKammerer CAHackney Nebraska File RBernero SSchwartz VMiller
,DCD (SP01)
- See previous concurrence.
/, 3 n
~
_,S,bSAA,D,,f.,S,
__0,F,C,, ! RIV:SA0 RA:RIV jNMS
_ [SP:D,l M _ _ _,
_jqE_ i!RJDoda 4 JLMilhoan_4 VLuiller 4 Se artz ! RBe o_ ! CKammerer -4,_,,,_,
i V
i DTE ! 07/3/92
!07/3/92
!07/17/92
! 07/AP/92 !07/21/92 !07/?f/92 I
k
/
33_ ! DEES
!f p,
_,,,,,f _,,
j,,,_,,,,,f,,,,,,,,
h_,___j,____f
..EME,,gThhson j,JM,Qor,_,[
1 f
DTE ! 07/'),/ /92
! ON 4/92 G:HB92COM.RLW j
7 7<
s e
APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW f
0F AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" were published in the Federal Reaister on May 28, 1992, as an NRC Policy Statement.
The guidelines provide 30 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 performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in r
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 I indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use the 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 public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's progr e..
If one or more Category I comments are noted as significant, 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.
The NRC would request an immediate response.
If, following 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 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 follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period.
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 i
all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Act, as amended.
The Commission will be informed of 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 NRC Public Document Room.
I ENCLOSURE 1 l
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS FOR THE NEBRASKA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM JUNE 15, 1990 TO JUNE 26, 1992 Scope of Review This program review was conducted in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs published in the Federal Reaister on May 28, 1992, and the internal procedures established by the NRC's State Agreements Program.
The State's program was reviewed against the 30 program indicators provided in the Guidelines. The review included inspector accompaniments, discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license and compliance files, and the-evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
The 25th regulatory program review meeting with Nebraska representatives was held during the period June 22-26, 1992. The State was represented by Harold Borchert, Director, Division of Radiological Health and Jay Ringenberg, Manager, Low Level Radioactive Waste Program.
The review of the program also included discussions with upper level managers within the Department of Health (D0L) and the Department of Environmental Control (DEC). A review of selected license and compliance files was conducted during June 23-24, 1992.
A review of legislation and regulations, organization, management and administration, and personnel was conducted June 24-25, 1992. A summary meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was held with Dr. Mark B. Horton, Director, Department of Health, on June 26, 1992, in Lincoln, Nebraska.
An earlier meeting had been held with Mr. Randy Wood, Director, Department of Environmental Control, on June 24, 1992.
A significant portion of time during the review was spent on matters relating to U.S. Ecology's application for disposal of low-level radioactive waste at its proposed disposal site in Boyd County.
However, NRC's low-level waste management staff were not available for this review, but will be used in the future for a more detailed review of this complex licensing action.
In addition to the routine office review, an accompaniment investigation with a State inspector was made at Kawasaki Motors Corporation, Lincoln, Nebraska on June 22, 1992.
Conclusion As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the State of Nebraska, the NRC identified l
significant problems in two program areas which need to be addressed prior to the NRC offering a finding that the Nebraska program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the NRC's program.
The first of these problems is the status of the State's inspection program, where a large backlog of overdue inspections exists.
ENCLOSURE 2 l
2 i
Also, a continuina problem remains to be addressed, i.e., the filling of several technical vacancies within the D0H. Without the filling of these vacancies, the Division does not have the resources to address a backlog of overdue inspections.
Certain improvements were found in the materials program, during the review, particularly in the State's management practices, budget allotments, administrative procedures, and enforcement procedures.
Status of Proaram Related to Previous NRC Findinas The previous NRC routine review was concluded on June 15, 1990, and comments and recommendations were sent to the State in a letter dated July 30, 1990. A followup review was performed on November 29, 1990, and results were provided to the State in a letter dated Jan.uary 17, 1991. At that time, the program was found to be adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of similar materials.
Nebraska's revised radiation control regulations had becone effective on November 25, 1990.
The comments and recommendations from the previous program reviews were followed up and the State's responses were evaluated for adequacy.
All previous comments and recommendations have been closed out, except for a backlog of overdue inspections and an ongoing problem of vacancies in technical positions existing in the Division of Radiological Health (DOH).
The Division is still understaffed and well below NRC guidelines for agreement material programs. Also, the inspection backlog has not improved from the reviews of 1990.
Current Review Comments and Recommendations The Nebraska radiation control program (RCP) satisfies the Guidelines in 26 of the 30 indicators. The State did not~ meet the guidelines in two Category I indicators, Status and Compatibility of Regulations and Status of Inspection Program. The comment and recommendation on regulations involves the adoption of a regulatory amendment on decommissioning, and in accordance with current NRC policy wherein the amendment is scheduled for early adoption, this.is treated as a minor comment. The comment and recommendation regarding overdue inspections is of major significance, even though the State has a plan in place to address these inspections.
The other two comments and recommendations concern Category II indicators.
I.
Radiation Control Proaram Other Than the Commercial Disposal of LLBM A.
Status and Compatibility of Reculations is a Cateaory I Indicator Comment The review of the State's radiation control regulations disclosed that the State's regulations are compatible with the NRC regulations up to the 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments on decommissioning that became effective on July 27, 1988. This
3 decommissioning amer.;' ment is a matter of compatibility and in accordance with curre t *r.; practice, if this particular amendment is on track for ador'io:; by 1993, a finding of compatibility is not withheld, and ti,e finding is of minor significance.
The State has initiated rulemaking on the decommissioning rule and it is projected to become effective prior to July 1993.
Other regulations also have been adopted by NRC that are matters of compatibility and these regulations need to be adopted within three years after the effective date.
For planning purposes, these regulations are identified below with the Federal Reaister (FR) notice and the date that the State needs to adopt the regulation to maintain compatibility.
" Emergency Planning Rule," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments (54 FR 14051) are needed by April 7, 1993.
" Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment," 10 CFR a
Part 34 amendment (55 FR 843) is needed by January 10, 1994.
l
" Standards for Protection Against Radiation," 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (56 FR 61352) is needed by January 1, 1994.
r
" Notification of Incidents," 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, f
39, 40, and 70 amendments (56 FR 40757) are needed by October 15, 1994.
" Quality Management Program and Misadministrations," 10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56 FR 153) is needed by January 27, 1995.
Recommendation We recommend the decommissioning amendment be adopted as soon as 0
possible.
In addition, the RCP should begin to address the other regulations that are needed to maintain compatibility.
B.
Staffina tevel is a Cateaory II Indicator Comment Staffing is still a serious problem in the Division of Radiological Health (DOH).
The Division is below NRC guidelines for the agreement materials program due to two experienced staff members recently leaving the Division.
Internally, the Division has made several key reassignments to address this problem, such as assigning one of their staff members as project manager with DEC, for the LLRW project, and another member being moved from the X-ray Group to the Licensing and Inspection Group.
The Division
t 4
is currently recruiting for four technical positions with no success thus far.
The lack of staff is heav Cy raflected in the significant overdue inspection backlog that the Divuion currently has.
Nebraska should consider that it has a large radiation control program from the standpoint of the diversity of licensees and other radiation control activities.
The State has irradiators, manufacturers, broad academic, broad medical, a radiopharmacy, radiographers, and two nuclear power plants, in addition to other l
routine regulatory matters. Therefore, Nebraska should be at the upper end of NRC's recommended staffing range.
Recommendation We recommend the Division immediately increase its staffing level for the agreement materials program into the NRC's recommended range of 1.0 to 1.5 FTE per 100 licenses.
C.
Technical Ouality of Licensino Actions is a Catecory I Indicator Comment Our program review disclosed that the Division has started using a licensing condition (Good Samaritan Hospital, License No. 09-02-01) whereby radioactive materials with half lives of 300 days or less may be held for decay for 10 half lives and then disposed of without regard to radioactivity. We understand that this condition was developed for cobalt-57 (half life of 270 days), a NARM material not regulated by the NRC.
Nonetheless, we believe a general license condition should not be less restrictive than what NRC currently authorizes in its licensing practice.
Recommendation I
We recommend that the State restrict this license condition to NRC's current practice, i.e., radioactive materials with half l
lives of less than 120 days may be held for decay in storage.
In the alternative, the Division may wish to submit a written rationale for an extension to 300 day half life materials to the NRC for evaluation.
3 D.
Status of Insoection Procram is a Cateoory I Indicator i
Comment To date, the Division' of Radiological Health has not been able to reduce the backlog of inspections due. The reassignment and retraining of one individual within the Division, although a step in the right direction, is not enough to address this problem
l i
5 fully.
Recruitment of the four additional positions already authorized within the Division is a necessity.
l The current inspection backlog for Priority I and II inspections stands at 28.
Twenty of these are overdue by more than 50 percent of their inspection interval, more than that found in the last i
review.
In addition, there are 25 overdue initial inspections.
The NRC staff considered the overall backlog, the number of i
routine inspections that need to be done to maintain the s
inspection program, and the staff resources that will be available i
to the State.
We conclude that the backlog can be eliminated by adding the additional staff, as mentioned above.
i inspection of major licensees must be brought up to date as soon
{
as possible and a program should be implemented to stabilize and reduce the list of Priority I and II inspections that are overdue for inspection.
The Division has a plan to address the inspection backlog; however, it can only be fully implemented by the additional staff l
currently being recruited.
Recomendation We recommend that the Division of Radiological Health fill the i
technical vacancies expeditiously and eliminate the inspection backlog in accordance with the existing plan.
i 11.
Radiation Control Proaram for the Commercial Discosal of low-level t
i Radioactive Waste (LLRW)
A.
Staffino Level is a Cateoorv II Indicator Coment HUREG-1200, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, provides guidance for the review and assessment of the safety and i
i performance of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility with respect to release of radioactivity and possible resultant radiological impacts on individuals.
This standard review plan emphasizes the importance of performance assessments as a means of determining compliance with the regulatory criteria, i
We noted during the review that the Nebraska LLRW disposal program l
was using consultants and staff members from DEC and DOH to conduct performance assessments and verify results. However, it 4
was not apparent that the State was developing an on-staff health physicist with the capability of running computer codes and verifying the sensitivity of the codes to various input i
parameters.
Performance assessments may be necessary during the l
9 6
operational and closure periods of a facility, in addition to strictly during the licensing phase of a LLRW disposal facility.
Recommendation We suggest the State consider the need to develop an on-staff health physicist with the capability of running and evaluating the various codes for performance assessment as the licensing process continues.
The State should consider the value of having this experience available in the future for the LLRW disposal facility's operational and closure periods.
1
SUMMARY
DISCUSSIONS WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVES Summary meetings to present the results of the program review were held on June 24 and June 26, 1992, by Robert Doda, Region IV State Agreements Officer, NRC, with Dr. Mark B. Horton, Director, Department of Health, and Randy Wood, Director, Department of Environmental Control.
Other meetings were also held with Burk Cassari, Harold Borchert, Jay Ringenberg, Cheryl Rogers, and Carla Felix.
The State was informed of current findings on the improvements in the program in response to the NRC recommendations during the previous program reviews.
In particular, the staff was commended for the management coordination under the M00 between DOH and DEC.
The problem of filling staff vacancies in the DOH agreement materials program was described as needing immediate attention.
The difficulty in filling vacancies for license and inspection activities appears to be the primary reason for a chronic backlog of overdue inspections.
i A closecut discussion with the RCP technical staff was held on June 25, 1992.
The State was represented by Harry Borchert and other Division staff.
Several general and specific questions were raised by the State representatives. A briefing was conducted by the NRC reviewer on NRC's new formats for the reporting of State incidents and State statistical information to the NRC.
h e
I