ML20206R726

Forwards Comments on Decommissioning & Sealed Source & Device Portions of Revised Ohio Application,Office of State Programs Analysis of Application & Related Procedures

ML20206R726
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/10/1998
From:	Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
Shared Package
ML20206R720	List: ML20206R716 ML20206R726
References
NUDOCS 9901200132
Download: ML20206R726 (6)

Text

_ _

. . =_ _ .

. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _. _ . _ _ _ _r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

5 g

f"%1 UNITED STATES l

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t WASHINGTON, D.C. sages.eept -

November 10, 1998  :

E  !

MEMORANDUM TO: Richard L. Bangart, Director I g ,

Office of State Programs o cn .

-n J t FROM: Carl J. ' lo r W  !

c l

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF OHIO l  ;

i in further response to your memorandum of September 25,1998, the Office of Nuclear Material  !

Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) has reviewed the decommissioning and sealed source and l device (SSD) portions of the revised Ohio application, the Office of State Programs (OSP) l analysis of the application, and the related procedures. Our comments are attached.

1 With respect to the SSD Program, you asked us to concur that NMSS' previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed or identify additional information necessary to resolve the comments. Based upon our review we cannot concur that our previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed, because Ohio's supporting documentation contained significant inconsistencies. However, we have identified several key SSD issues that Ohio does not appear to have sufficiently addressed (see Attachment 1). My staff is available to meet with I you and/or Ohio to discusa tnese issues, and to address how Ohio can provide satisfactory l l answers to our previous questions.  ;

The absence of decommissioning procedures or a description of their contents makes it difficult te determine whether the program will provide sufficient guidance. Some of the comments on the previous draft are not addressed in sufficient detail to permit a conclusion on the program. '

The comments identify additional information needed and raise a concem about staffing to perform Environmental lmpact Statements.

As a general matter, it is not clear what the latest Ohio position is on some decommissioning issues regarding license termination. Ohio revised its License Termination Policy on August 21, 1998, and since then, Roger Suppes has provided a memo that further revises the positions in CONTACT: Paul F. Goldberg, NMSS/IMNS (301) 415-7842 ,

1 9901200132 981230 PDR  !

STPRG ESGOH  !

! PDR

• i ENCLOSURE 2

1 Bangart, Richard L. 2 November 10, 1998 )

l that August 21,1998, version of the policy. There may be other informal correspondence that changes the Agreement application. Once these issues are settled (like those that the Commission has had in the last few weeks on license termination), the formal documentation (in this case, the License Termination Policy) will need to be conformed.

Attachments:

1. NMSS Comments on Ohio Program for Sealed Source and Device

2. NMSS Comments on Ohio Decommissioning Program 1

i l

e

.e ',

NMSS Comments on Ohio Program for Sealed Sources and Devices 11/5/98 With respect to the SSD Program, we found that Ohio's supporting documentation contained significant inconsistencies and was of limited quality. As a result, we cannot determine whether our previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. We have identified several key SSD issues that Ohio does not appear to have sufficiently addressed (see Attachment 1). NRC staff is available to meet with Ohio to discuss these issues, and to address how Ohio can provide satisfactory answers to our previous questions.

1. The information that has been submitted to date regarding the qualifications program for assigning review responsibilities does not clearly demonstrate that, prior to granting signature authority to a reviewer, candidate reviewers will be assessed to determine that I they are technically qualified in accordance with the requirements in Management Directive 5.6.

As indicated in an NRC letter dated July 29,1998, in response to Ohio's draft

• application, such a program would assure that for reviewers to be given SSD signature authority, they would first be evaluated to ensure that they meet established minimum

! standards, through experience, training, and/or formal education, to enable them to fully l address allissues in the areas for which they are being granted signature authority. For l example, the qualification program could require that candidate reviewers complete a l sufficient number of cases, which are critiqued by a qualified SSD reviewer to determine whether the candidate reviewer adequately identified and addressed all pertinent issues.

Signature authority must be granted prior to a reviewer signir,g any registration certificates. In order to obtain experience in SSD reviews, an option could be to assign staff cases to work on, with all deficiency letters being reviewed by a staff member with full signature authority before issuance. When the candidate reviewer believes that he or she has identified and addressed all issues, the certificate would be reviewed in full, by two staff members with full signature authority, or by one staff with full signature authority and a team. The length of time required to qualify an individual may vary depending on the training and education that the individual started with.

It should be noted that, in the absence of additional experience, education, or formal training, participation in the SSD Workshop and/or the short OJT that may be provided l by NRC to Ohio staff, would not, in and of itself, provide enough training to satisfy these j requirements.

2. The application indicates the possible use of contractors or individuals from other state agencies to perform portions of the review. However, the process for using contractors l or individuals is not clear in several areas, including: (1) what areas may be contracted l out; (2) how the process will ensure that these individuals are qualified, and whether they will be evaluated and granted signature authonty; and (3) if contractors will not granted signature authority, how their review and recommendations will be used recognizing that the certificate must be evaluated and signed only by individuals having

, signatura authority.

l l

) Attachment 1 1

y*

3. The application indicates that the team leader of the concurrence review will review reports submitted by the team members and compare them to the initial review.

The following items should be clarifed:

a. How will the first reviewer's review results and recommendation be documented?

b. The independence of the concurrence review conclusions as indicated in Management Directive 5.6.

4. The documents contained apparent inconsistencies. Due to time and resource ,

constraints, NRC did not review all documents to identify all instances of these apparent errors; however, the following are provided as examples:

Inconsistent information between documents - the " Registration Certificate Revocation" section in the SRP (page 7 of 70) states that Ohio will remove the certificate; however, the same section in the SSD Consolidated Guidance (page 25) states that NRC will remove the certificate. Also, see the incidents section in both the SRP (page 7 of 70) and the Consolidated Guidance (page 25).

Unclear - the "Use of intemational or Foreign Standards" section in the SSD Consolidated Guidance (page 23) does not make sense, incorrect reolacement of Ohio for NRC - the " Registration Certificate Revocation" section in the SSD Consolidated Guidance (page 25) should read that if corrective actions cannot be agreed upon between OHIO and the certificate holder (instead of NRC and the certificate holder), then OHIO may modify or remove the registration certificate.

Editing - in the SSD Consolidated Guidance, there was inconsistent formatting of the document headers, making the document difficult to review. Also in the SSD Consolidated Guidance, the last page reads, at the top

• ENDNOTES - this procedure is not attached to this program." It is unclear what this means.

5. The SSD Consolidated Guidance includes references to exempt use products, and indicates that NRC has retained the authority to perform these design reviews.

However, the Guidance also contains references to Ohio regulations goveming these reviews (ex. the section on self-luminous products containing tritium /Kr-85/Pm-147 and the section on gas and aerosol detectors references

• Chapter 3748 of the Revised Code and rule 3701-3g-021 of the Administrative Code which delineates Title 10 CFR 32.22 and 32.26, respectively"). This apparent discrepancy needs to be corrected.

6. The documents frequently list NRC procedure / policy. Since the document applies to Ohio procedures / policy, it should address only Ohio procedure / policy.

2

1. . .

'[

NMSS Comments on Ohio Decommissioning Program 10/21/98

1. Comment # 53 in the OSP analysis concoms the need for Ohio to develop procedures for decommissioning. OSP notes that Ohio did not specircally commit to develop and implement the procedures it intends to develop before the agreement is signed. OSP also requested NMSS to review the Ohio response on decommissioning for adequacy.

Ohio has identified five proccdures that are to be developed, in its " Guidance Policy for License Termination and Decommissioning. " In addition to not committing to use them, as OSP has pointed out, there is not enough information about them to be able to tell if they are suffcient. Only a title for each was provided. In order to have assurance that sufficient procedures are in place when the Agreement is signed, the staff recommends the following:

a) Ohio should provide an outline of the content of the five procedures listed in the Guidance Policy for License Termination, so that the staff can determine the adequacy of the procedures. This outline should be in sufficient detail to determine what activities and criteria are covered. If Ohio identifies additional required procedures, an outline of their content should also be provided.

b) Ohio should commit to developing and implementing the identifuxf procedures by the time the Agreement is signed, or, altemative!y, identifying the essential procedures that are required to be implemented at the time of the Agreement.

c) Ohio should provide one or more draft or final procedures for decommissioning, consistent with the materials program procedure review, for staff review prior to the signing of the Agreement.

2. The Ohio list of decommissioning procedures includes one for developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for terminating a license and decommissioning a site. This is the first statement by Ohio that it will be performing environmental reviews,4n addition to the health and safety reviews that are required by the Agreement with NRC.

The staff has concems about this new responsibility adversely impacting staffing levels for decommissioning. Previously, the staff had found the Ohio levels adequate for the work at hand. However, if Ohio staff will be preparing EIS's, the levels are likely not adequate. An EIS can take several FTE to prepare.

To address this concem, Ohio should describe the scope of the EIS's that will be required, the decommissioning staff effort expected for these new environmental review responsibilities, any contractor assistance that will be utilized, and the overall effect on the staffing levels needed for adequately reviewing decommissioning actions of licensees.

3. NMSS agrees with the OSP analysis of Comment # 1 concerning exemptions for disposal and the possible incompatibility for new disposal exemptions promulgated by NRC.

Attachment 2

Ar l

l

' C.- Comments on Licensing

'1. The " Program for the Licensing of Radioactive Materials" revision 1, dated 24 July 1998, page 16, indicates that the Bureau may impose disposal requirements on exempt materials and items. The text references section 3748.10 of the Ohio l

Revised Code. We have two questions:

a. Would the materials and items identified in the section entitled " Specific Exemptions" of the licensing program (equivalent to the materials and items identified in 10 CFR 30.14 through 30.18) be subjected to any disposal requirements?

i

! b. While no materials or items have been classified as " exempt" after January 1,1990, until now, the Commission may choose to do so in the future. Would such materials or items be subjected to any disposal i requirements?  !

The answers should reflect the opinion of the Bureau's legal advisor.

L

(

2. The application states that Ohio will reissue NRC general licenses for certain devices containing "large" (>100 mci) sources as Ohio specific licenses. Ohio rules provide that such devices can be possessed under either a general license

, or a specific license. Please describe the authority and regulatory basis which j the program will use for reissuing these general licences as Ohio specific i

licenses. i 1

l l

l l

i l

I I

l l

I t

ENCLOSURE 3

~

f

• g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON. O.C. 20S66-0001 November 20, 1998 CFFICE oF THE I SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers E E ive D ctor for Operstions E 4

FROM:

&_.- 3 a n C. H , Secretary e en j

SUBJECT:

IP: 7 STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-g8-209 - PROPOSED -

AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF OHIO AND 9 COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR PART 20, SUBPART E 5

The Commission has approved the staffs position that Ohio's approach to decommissioning is ,

compatible with NRC's radiological criteria for license termination (the cleanup rule) described in  !

Subpart E of Part 20.

l The Commission offers the following comments on two issues that were not specifically addressed in the paper- NRC-licensed sites remediated under the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) or other sites with NRC-approved decommissioning plana, and formerly-licensed sites located in Ohio. The staff should inform the Commission of its resolution of these issues when submitting the final agreement to the Commission for approval. - 4 (Eee) (SP) l (SECY Suspense: at time final agreement is submitted) 199800190 i L

e Regarding sites with NRC-approved decommissioning plans including SDMP sites, while the Commission continues to support compatibility category *C" for NRC's cleanup rule to provide Agreement States flexibility to impose more <

restrictive cleanup standards, the Commission also believes that licensed sites with NRC-approved decommissioning plans including SDMP sites should not be ,

subject to a second set of cleanup criteria. To effect this, NRC piomulgated i

specific provisions in the cleanup rule to " grandfather" such sites taereby providing finality for the sites. While the Commission may not have specifically contemplated applying Agreement State criteria to such sites whan promulgating the rule, the Commission did intend to ensure finality for grandfathered sites by not subjecting them to a second set of cleanup criteria regardless of the source.

l Based on the information received, it is the Commission's understanding that Ohio will honor any decommissioning plan approved by NRC prior to the effective date of the Agreement. This approach will ensure that the intent of NRC's rule is met. States entering'into agreements with NRC in the future should be encouraged to follow the same approach. The staff and OGC should explore with Ohio whether it is necessary from a legal basis-as implied in Ohio's memorandum-to amend the licenses of sites with NRC-approved c decommissioning plans to recognize those plans prior to transfening the license to Ohio. Resolution of this issue is particularly important in the case of the ENCLOSURE 4 bM'* ._t . _ N

fe'

1 .

I

/

/ -

i Shelwell site since the staff considers the probabilistic approach described in

/

SECY-98-117 to be the "NRC-approved decommissioning plan" thereby

/

! ' eliminating the need for submittal of a formallicense termination plan by the licensee.

e Regarding "formerly-licensed

• sites, the staff should ensure that information relevant to the formerly-licensed sites located in Ohio--that were identified as a result of the license file review conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)-is shared with Ohio wellin advance of the effective date of the 1 agreement. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, ORNL file review '

results, NRC followup actions and NRC's basis for its determination to "close the file" in each case. NRC should ensure that there is full disclosure of informati!

associated with these sites. '

While the Commission recognizes that the SDMP Shieldalloy site in Cambridge, Ohio may be subject to Ohio's cleanup rule since the licensee has not yet submitted a decommissioning plan j for NRC approval, the Commission looks forward to receiving the staff paper on the technical  ;

issues associated with possible transfer of licensed material from both Shieldalloy sites (Ohio and New Jersey) to non-licensees. It is conceivable that the Commission's decision on these issues could influence Shieldalloy's decision on whether to submit a decommissioning plan to ,

NRC or to Ohio once the agreement is in effect. The Commission needs a prompt proposal (or options paper) to resolve this matter on a fast track.

(E90) (NMSS) (SECY Suspense: 4248/06) 199800191 12/11/98 The staff should forward to the Commission for information purposes a copy of the final NUREG developed by ORNL that summarizes the file review and its findings.

(590) (NMSS) (SECY Suspense: at time final NUREG is 199800192 complete) cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz l Commissioner McGaffigan l Commissioner Merrifield OGC ClO CFO OCA l OlG

! OPA i Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

! PDR DCS 4

I

. 9g m..wim..w..-.e+ _wa+earvem -we y eq=ce g. w,pesg ges- '

'