ML20055D262
| ML20055D262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/01/1988 |
| From: | Doda R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055D259 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-90-169 NUDOCS 9007060063 | |
| Download: ML20055D262 (1) | |
Text
'
,, ]/
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-[
UNITio STATES
{
I mici:N iv
.. ;g-
[
ett nvAm PLAZA OnlVE. SUITE 1000
- AnuwcTow texas M11 SEP 1 1988
- h%
MEMORANDUM FOR: Donald A. Nussbaumer, Assista ge r for Agreements Program, SLITP FROM:
Robert J. Doda, State Agreements Officer
SUBJECT:
REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION OF THE NEBRASKA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 8, 1986 TO JULY 1, 1988 Enclosed is the subject report and staff evaluation.
As noted in the report, the staff believes the Nebraska radiation control program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. However, a finding of compatibility could not be made for the program due to the lack of certain effective regulations that are matters of compatibility.
Nebraska's revised regulations contain all the necessary regulations for maintaining compatibility. They are expected to become effective toward the end of 1988.
Based on the results of this review meeting, the staff recommends that the next routine review meeting be conducted in 24 months.
Robert J. Doda State Agreements Officer
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/o enclosure:
Carlton C. Kamerer, Director State, Local & Indian Tribe Programs, NRC l
\\'
9007060063 900523
~
hl Y O
/ta u sgg UNITED STATES
! $.. f e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- r j wAssiNotoN. o e 20555 ic., %/
A UG 0 4 1965 Gregg F. Wright, M.D., Director Department of Health 301 Centennial Mall South P. O. Box 95007 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Dear Dr. Wright:
This confirms the discussion Mr. Robert J. Doda held with you and Messrs. Burke Casari, Harold Borchert, and Ellis Simons on July 1,1988, following our review of the Nebraska Radiation Control Program.
As a result of our review of thr State's' program and the routine exchange of infortration between the NRC and the State of Nebraska, the staff believes that the Nebraska program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to I
protect public health and safety.
However, due to the lack of up-to-date radiation control regulations, we are unable to make a finding at this time that the Nebraska program is compatible with the Comission's program for the regulation of similar mater'els.
This Category I coment and recomendation is detailed in Enclosure 1, which also contains our other technical coments concerning the program review.
This is the second consecutive review (the previous one occurred on August 8 1986) in which we were unable to find that the Nebraska regulations were fully l
compatible with the NRC's regulations.
This serious situation should be addressed and corrected by the State at an early date. We ask for a written response to this coment and to the other Category I comment ^ contained in.
Our review disclosed that most other program indicators were within NRC guidelines. Also, a number of other technical matters were discussed with the radiation control staff and resolved during the course of the review meeting.
- An explanation'of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 2.
On April-12, 1987, NRC reorganized its staff. The State Agreements Program is now a part of the new Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reports-to the Commission. One purpose of this organizational change was to provide an improved focus for NRC relationships with the States. Our regional offices l
will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory program. We encourage you' and your staff to continue to look to the Regional Administrator and his staff as the primary contact with NRC.
(
i mem t-K-
Esj '
k'd s
e
' Gregg*F. Wright, M.D.
2 N 04 1988
(
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to L
Mr. Doda during the review meeting. 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,
?
Ddginal si;nd hy Car",sa l'.amnerer Carlton Xannerer Director State, local and Indian Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
As stated g-1
-ce w/encis:
Mr. H. R. Borchert. Director Division of Radiological Health State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room Distributicn::
SA R/F Dir R/F F
JOLubenau RDoda, RIV-CMaupin NE' file (fc)w/encls.
SP01 F
RMartin, RIV
. Ots A tsh i
FC:
16n IV A
- 5LITP/DD
- 5LITP/D AME:
oda/bh
- CHMaupin
- D sbaumer RH er r
?
i O
O
i i
ENCLOSURE 1 TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECO WENDATIONS FOTTHE NEBRA5KA RADI ATION C0hTROL PROGRAM i
1.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations (Category I indicator)
Coment
[
The review of the State's radiation control regulations disclosed that six regulatory amendments, which are matters of compatibility, have not been adopted by the state within a 3-year period after adoption by the NRC.
This is a continuation of the same problem found during the previcus review in August 1986.
The previous routine review of the Nebraska radiation control program was conducted in August 1986. As a result of that review, the Nebraska program was found to be adequate to protect public health and safety.
However, that review disclosed a problem in the program area relating to status of regulations.
The last overall revision in the Nebraska radiation control regulations had been completed in 1981.
The NRC recomended that program staff revise the regulations and incorporate the necessary items for maintaining compatibility. Because of the out-of-date radiation control regulations, the NRC was unable to make a finding, at that time, that the Nebraska program was compatible with the Comission's program for the regulation of similar materials.
Since that time, the Division has worked on updating the state's regulations and all sections are essentially complete. All regulations relating to NRC matters of compatibility have now been included in this revision.
Even:though it appears that the revision process is nearing completion, an effective-date for the new regulations is not expected to L
occur before the last half of 1988.
'r Recomenda tion L
We recomend that the state accelerate the revisica process so that the revised regulations become effective at an early date, such that a i
finding of compatibility can be made for the Nebraska radiation control t
program.
i l
l:
l 1
?
2 2.
Legai Authority (Category I indicator)
Comert The Nebraska low Level Radioactive Weste Disposal Act was enacted on May 27, 1987. This act gave the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (DEC) the authority to develop a program for the regulation of a comercial low level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal faci'ity. DEC has established regulations that are compatible with NRC's regulations for the disposal of LLRW.
In DEC's regulations, Title 194, Chapter 4, Section 004, states that, " Operations at the land disposal facility shall be conducted in compliance with the standards for radiation protection set out in Title 180, except for releases of radioactivity in effluents from the land disposal facility which shall be governed by 002 of this Chapter.
The Title 180 regulations are those of the Department of Health.
The Nebraska Radiation Control Act (recently revised, August 30,1987) designates the Department of Health (DOH) as the responsible agency for the regulation of radioactive materials as they relate to occupational and public health and safety, and the environment.
This act in defining the management of LLRW excludes the commercial disposal of LLRW in a disposal l-
- facility, it should be noted that in 1966, when the NRC originally entered into an agreement with Nebraska, DOH was designated as the agency i
to carry out the radiation control program for agreement materials, which included LLRW disposal.
DOH is also developing regulations (Title 180) that are compatible with NRC's regulations for the disposal of LLRW (these regulations are expected to become effective later in 1988).
During a meeting on LLRW on June 28,1988 (held in Lincoln, Nebraska and attended by J. Ringenberg, DEC, H. Borchert, DOH, C. Maupin, NRC, and R. Doda, NRC).the DEC representative stated that DEC would be responsible for site selection, construction and monitoring of air and water for the t
l LLRW disposal facility; whereas, DOH would regulate the handling, transportation, packaging, and site operations for LLRW. DEC believes this is clearly stated in their regulations in Section 004, as discussed above. This meeting also disclosed that the initial phases of a management plan have been started, which includes: (1) The listing of all affected State agencies, (2) License and permit requirements, and-(3) A matrix, nearly finished, to delineate the responsibilities of contractors, State agencies, and Federal agencies in carrying out Nebraska's regulatory program. The staffing requirements were also discussed at this meeting (reference, NUREG 1274) along with the need for the management plan to address staffing, budget, and licensing functions necessary to meet a 15-month license review period, as stipulated in the LLRW Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
l l'
L
h
[
t -
Recomenda tions Based upon the Nebraska statutes, the Agreement between Nebraska and the NRC, the regulations of DEC and DOH, and the discussions described above, we believe the overlapping authorities and responsibilities for the regulation of a LLRW disposal site are unclear and not well defined at the present-time. Also, in order to. avoid the possibility of a conflict of 1
interest between the responsibility for the selection and development of a LLRW facility, and the responsibility for the establishment of radiological standards, and the licensing, inspection, and enforcement activities regarding these standards, it is important that these two different types of responsibilities not be assigned to the same State agency. As a result of our current review and assessment of the LLRW disposal aspect of Nebraska's radiation control program, we make the following two recomendations:
(1) A clear delineation of responsibilities should be drawn for the agencies involved in the development ani regulation of the LLRW disposal site in Nebraska.
(2) The independence of the radiological licensing function should be defined such that no apparent conflict of interest can exist between the siting and development activities for the site, and the licensing, inspection, and enforcement activities relating to the regulatory program for the site.
3.
Staffing Level (Category 11 indicator)
Coment The. review disclosed that the current staffing level for the radiation control program is.9 FTE/100 licenses, which is slightly below the NRC recomended range of.1.0 to 1.5 FTE/100 licenses. The Division is also faced with a significant increase in health physics work relating to the low level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal site that is being developed in Nebraska.
Recomendation We recommend the Division increase its staffing level for the agreement materials program into the NRC's reconinended range of 1.0 to 1.5 FTE/100 licenses..We also suggest that a project manager be obtained for the radiological regulatory activities that must be undertaken during the licensing process for the LLRW disposal site that is currently being developed in the State.
-,-,-...-c,
y 3
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement 5 tate 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 Guidelines provides 29 indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas. Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into 2 categories, j
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 11 indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions. Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal prograrr areas, i.e., those that fall under Category I indicators. Category !!
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 intentior. to use these categories in the following manner.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each coment made.
If no significant Category I coments are provided, this -
will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and' safety and is compatible w+ th the NEC's program.
If one or more significant Category I comments are provided, the State will be rctified that the program deficiencies may seriously.iffect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety land that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the Stete's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I coments, 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 infomation is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perfom 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 infomed 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.
l
,