ML20052H394
| ML20052H394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/14/1981 |
| From: | Copeland R, Engelken R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V), WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052H392 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205200317 | |
| Download: ML20052H394 (4) | |
Text
-
4007g[I i3,
.l DSilS Contract N3.
,f -
Subagre_eme,n t
"" **M @ "';y Between the S, tate _ of Wasnington and tne NRC Related to Use of Third Party Data in Transportation Enforcement Cases
Background
The State of Washington nas nad State inspectors at tne low level radioactive waste burial site near Ricnland, Washington on a full time basis, wnenever the site is operating. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).nas had NRC inspectors at tne site an average of about four days per month.
This has resulted in uneven enforcement actions against NRC licensees because, in tne past, NRC actions nave been limited to observations by the NRC inspectors.
Tne NRC has determined tnat information gathered by State of Washington inspectors can be used by the NRC in enforcement actions against NRC licensees.
This will result in more effective and more unifonn enforcement action overall.
This also snould improve the radiation safety during transportation of radioactive waste and during its receipt and handling at the burial site.
It is recognized that utilization of the concept discussed above will require agreement and cooperation from both parties.
It is expected that utilization of this concept will not require excessive effort or extensive program cnanges by cither the State or NRC, and in the overall effect will be advantageous to both parties.
On September 6,1978 the NRC and the State of Washington signed a Memorandum of Agreement which expressed the desirc of both parties to cooperate in the regulation of nuclear activities.
Tnat broad Memorandum of Agreement anticipated subagreements related to more specific areas of cooperation.
Tnis Subagreement to the Memorandum of Agreement is intended to define tne broad policy matters involved in cooperation on transportation enforcement matters.
It is expected tnat both parties will develop operating procedures to implement these policies.
Agree,ments_ a,nd Understandings In order to define and clarify tne roles of the State of Wasnington and the NRC, those two parties agree as follows:
1 This Subagreement does not alter the authority of the State to issue and to terminate user permits, to regulate operations at the site that are normally under the jurisdiction of the Stato, and to take any other actions normally under State jurisdiction.
8205200317 820506 PDR STPRO ESGC0 PDR
. f.
2.
This Subagreement does not alter the authority of the NRC to take enforcement actions against its licensecs for violations of NRC regulations and requirements.
3.
Efforts will be made by botn parties to avoid duplicative and excessive action against a shipper for tne same violation.
This is not meant to preclude approprlato dual actions such as termination of a user permit by tne State and NRC cnforcement action for the same violation.
4.
Best efforts will be made by botn parties to koop the other informed in a timely manner of any significant enforcement actions, status of pending cases, changes in regulations, interpretation, new developments, proposed Information Notices, Circulart. Bulletins or otner announcements and information in the transportation area.
5.
When a violation of NRC or DOT requirements is observed by a State inspector in a shipment which originated at an NRC licensee, the following steps will be taken.
a.
The State of Washington will notify NRC Region V by telephone.
During tnis telepnonc discussion, a decision will be made whether the situation i
is serious enough for an NRC inspector to respond to tne site.
b.
If an NRC inspector is to respond, such response will be within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the notification if at all possible.
No action is required of the State of Washington except to make arrangements to have the package or shipment held until the arrival of tne NRC inspector.
c.
If the decision is tnat an NRCinspector will not respond, a decision will be made during the telephone conversation wnetner tne NRC wants to consider action on the matter.
Many situations may be of minor significance and questionable importance, and neither party will wish to take any for:nal action.
d.
If the NRC wishes to consider enforcement action on the matter, the State of Washington will supply information in writing to the NRC.
The amount of information will be kept to the minimum necessary for effective enforcement action.
Information will be in a mutually agreeable fonnat and wi!1 be completed in a timely manner, e.
It is recognized tnat should an NRC licensee formally protest enfortement action based on information supplied by a Stato inspector, tnat State inspector could be needed to provide testimony at dn NRC nearing.
The NRC will fund any travel costs associated with such testimony, and will supply any necessary legal suppurt for tne State inspei. tor.
6.
The principal contact for these matters within the Region V NRC office is tne Cnief, Materials Radiation Protection Section, Robert D. Thomas, telepnone 415-943-3700.
The principal contact for these matters in the State of Wasnington will be Nancy P. Kirner, telephone 206-753-3459.
_p 1
o
- f. -
- 7. '
Tnis Subagreement snall take effect immedately upon signing by the State and tne Nuclear Regulatory Comission, and may be terminated upon 30 days written notico by either party.
FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
_. ($. u(
x.u
//5 JoM A. Beare, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Health Services Division Department of Social and Healtn Services Dated this
?R.
day of _ i -
, 198L at ps L
- ..& 1 ' 4_=.- -
FOR THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gb R. H. Engelk'e'n Regional Administrator Region V Dated this, /U-day of
- Da*ced t,1981 at (L.NwY &(b b l v, 6 _a FORTHESTATE.OF, WASH [NGTON
/
l aP /
/ ~_ - f. h fjobert Copeland Contracting Officer t
Dated this day of
, 1981 at
Disposal Cost vs. Annual Generation Rate 80 i
i i.
70 Basic assumptions: 1985 dollars; 20 year life; cost of funds at 14%
60 4 R 50 2
u)O O
40 s4 t u)
O l n.
l$
30 0
l I
I 20 I
l 10 l
I I
l I
i i
i I
l l
I i
I I
i 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 3
ANNUAL GENERATION RATE (100,000 ft /yr)
__