ML24285A150
| ML24285A150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/21/2024 |
| From: | John Lubinski Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | Wendtland K State of WY, Dept of Environmental Quality |
| References | |
| Download: ML24285A150 (1) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Kyle Wendtland, Administrator Land Quality Division Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 200 West 17th St., Suite 10 Cheyenne, WY 82002
SUBJECT:
FINAL WYOMING FY2024 IMPEP REPORT
Dear Kyle Wendtland:
On October 10, 2024, the Management Review Board (MRB) met, which consisted of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) senior managers and an Organization of Agreement States member, to consider the proposed final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Wyoming Agreement State Program. The MRB Chair found the Wyoming program adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the NRC's regulatory program.
The enclosed final report documents the IMPEP teams findings and summarizes the results of the MRB meeting. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next periodic meeting will take place in approximately 2 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 4 years.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review. I also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Agreement State program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.
Sincerely, John W. Lubinski, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
1.
2024 Wyoming Final IMPEP Report 2.
2024 Wyoming MRB Meeting Participants cc: Brandi OBrien, Program Manager Source Material and Uranium Recovery October 21, 2024 Signed by Lubinski, John on 10/21/24 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE WYOMING AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM JUNE 24-27, 2024 FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the Wyoming Agreement State Program (Wyoming) are discussed in this report. The review was conducted on June 24-27, 2024. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of June 17, 2024.
The team found Wyomings performance to be satisfactory for the following five performance indicators: Technical Staffing and Training; Technical Quality of Uranium Recovery Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements. The team also found Wyomings performance to be satisfactory but needs improvement for the Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program performance indicator.
The team did not make any new recommendations and there were no recommendations from the previous review for the team to consider.
Accordingly, the MRB Chair found the Wyoming radiation control program adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. Based on the results of the IMPEP review, the next periodic meeting will take place in approximately 2 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 4 years.
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Wyoming Agreement State Program (Wyoming) Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review was conducted on June 24-27, 2024, by a team of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of Texas. Team members are identified in Appendix A. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of June 17, 2024. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B. The review was conducted in accordance with the Agreement State Program Policy Statement, published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), and NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated July 24, 2019. Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of March 27, 2020, to June 17, 2024, were discussed with Wyoming managers on the last day of the review.
In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the performance indicators was sent to Wyoming on April 25, 2024. Wyoming provided its response to the questionnaire on June 11, 2024. A copy of the questionnaire response is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System using the Accession Number ML24172A021.
The Wyoming Agreement State Program is administered by the Uranium Recovery Program (URP) which is in the Land Quality Division (the Division). The Division is part of the Department of Environmental Quality (the Department). Organization charts for Wyoming are available in ML24172A077.
At the time of the review, Wyomings agreement was limited to the regulation of 14 specific licenses authorizing possession and use of 11e.(2) byproduct material and source material involved in the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium in source material and ores at uranium and thorium milling facilities. The review focused on the radiation control program as it is carried out under Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of Wyoming.
The team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for each applicable performance indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the Wyoming programs performance.
2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The previous IMPEP review concluded on March 24-26, 2020. The final report is available in ML20177A322. The results of the review are as follows:
Technical Staffing and Training: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Technical Quality of Uranium Recovery Inspections: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: Satisfactory Recommendation: None
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 2 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Legislation Regulation and Other Program Elements: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Overall finding: Adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. The team further recommended, and the Management Review Board (MRB) agreed, that a periodic meeting be held within 2 years and that the next IMPEP review take place approximately 4 years.
3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The Wyoming Agreement State Program is limited to regulatory oversight of uranium recovery facilities. In accordance with Section V.H.8. of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Interim State Agreement (SA) Procedure SA-100 Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), for programs where the agreement only includes non-common indicators (e.g., URP or Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program), the team will: (1) review each sub-element independently as a common performance indicator and attribute a rating to each indicator; (2) use the specific guidance for reviewing the non-common performance indicators contained in NMSS Procedures SA-110, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Uranium Recovery Program, and SA-109 Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; (3) evaluate the indicator Legislation, Regulation, and Other Program Elements as a non-common indicator as specified in SA-107 Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; and (4) determine the overall adequacy and compatibility finding in accordance with the rating attributed to each sub-element as described in MD 5.6.
The objective is to determine if Wyomings program is adequate to protect public health and safety, and the environment. Five elements are used to make this determination:
1.
Technical Staffing and Training; 2.
Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program; 3.
Technical Quality of Uranium Recovery Inspections; 4.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and 5.
Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities.
At the time of the review Wyoming had 14 uranium mill licenses. Wyoming had eight licensed in-situ recovery facilities (five active facilities and three not constructed yet), four decommissioning conventional mill facilities, one conventional mill facility that was on standby, and one conventional mill facility that accepted 11e.(2) byproduct material for disposal.
3.1 Technical Staffing and Training The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent on having experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the implementation of these programs and could affect public health and safety. Apparent trends in staffing must be assessed. Review of staffing also requires consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification. The evaluation standard measures the overall quality of training available to, and taken by, materials program personnel.
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 3 a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-110 and evaluated Wyomings performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Qualified and trained technical staff are available to license, regulate, control, inspect, and assess the operation and performance of the URP.
Qualification criteria for new URP technical staff are established and are being followed, or qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired.
Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner.
There is a balance in staffing the URP licensing and inspection programs.
Management is committed to training and staff qualification.
Individuals performing URP licensing and inspection activities are adequately qualified and trained to perform their duties.
URP license reviewers and inspectors are trained and qualified in a reasonable period.
b.
Discussion The Wyoming Agreement State Program is comprised of 8 staff members which equals 7.4 full-time equivalent for the radiation control program when fully staffed. Three of the eight staff members work in other Division programs with expertise in disciplines required by the Program and are available on an as needed basis. There were no vacancies at the time of the on-site review. Six vacancies were posted and filled during the review period. The positions were vacant from 1 to 10 months. The team noted that Wyomings training and qualification program was compatible with the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC)
IMC 1248, Formal Qualifications Program for Federal and State Material and Environmental Management Programs.
Although Wyoming has experienced significant turnover, there has not been an impact on public health and safety and staffing and training remained a priority. The current program manager is qualified in licensing and inspection and was available to assist when needed.
Wyoming takes approximately one year to qualify staff for inspection and licensing.
Wyoming is planning to expand the agreement to include authorization for source material and plans to have to qualified staff that will be cross trained in uranium recovery.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Wyoming met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Wyomings performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Wyomings performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.2 Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program Periodic inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety and security practices. The frequency of inspections is specified in IMC 2801, Uranium Mill and 11e.(2) Byproduct Material Disposal Site and Facility Inspection Program, and is dependent on
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 4 the amount and type of radioactive material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-110, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator, Uranium Recovery Program, and evaluated Wyomings performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
The uranium recovery facility is inspected at prescribed frequencies.
Statistical data on the status of the inspection program are maintained and can be retrieved.
Deviations from inspection schedules are coordinated between URP technical staff and management.
There is a plan to perform any overdue inspections and reschedule any missed or deferred inspections; or a basis has been established for not performing overdue inspections or rescheduling any missed or deferred inspections.
Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner.
b.
Discussion At the time of the review, Wyoming regulated 14 uranium mill licenses. Of the 14 licenses, there were 8 licensed in-situ recovery facilities (5 active facilities and 3 not constructed yet),
4 decommissioning conventional mill facilities, 1 conventional mill facility that was on standby, and 1 conventional mill facility that accepted 11e.(2) byproduct material for disposal.
Wyoming performs inspections in accordance with the NRC IMC 2801, "Uranium Mill and 11e. (2) Byproduct Material Facility Inspection Program, Wyoming procedures URP-01 Uranium Recovery Inspection Procedures (In-Situ), URP-02 Uranium Mill and 11e.(2)
Byproduct Material Disposal Site and Facility Inspection Program, URP-03 Uranium Mill, In-Situ, and 11e.(2) Byproduct Material Disposal Decommissioning Inspections, URP-04 Technical Quality of Inspections, and URP-05 Instrumentation Field Function Checks and Use.
During the review period, Wyoming performed 45 inspections. There were no initial inspections conducted during the review period. During the review period, there were 13 overdue inspections ranging from 16 to 611 days overdue. Of the 13 overdue inspections, 7 inspections were overdue due to the pandemic. One inspection was overdue due to the harsh winter conditions, and 5 Title II facilities inspections were overdue due to staffing issues and prioritizing the more risk significant items. The 5 overdue inspections ranged from 157 to 611 days overdue. The five Title II facilities have been reclaimed with ongoing post monitoring. All the overdue inspections were subsequently completed.
The team noted that Temporary Instruction (TI) TI-003: Evaluating the Impacts of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) as Part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), states for inspections that exceed the scheduling window with overdue dates falling inside the defined time frame of the pandemic, the number of overdue inspections should be noted in the report but should not be counted in the calculation of overdue inspections described in SA-101, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Status of the Materials Inspection Program, Appendix A. Since the team concluded that Wyoming continued to maintain public health, safety, and security
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 5 during the pandemic, the seven inspections overdue to impacts related to the pandemic and bad weather were not considered by the team in establishing the overall rating for this performance indicator.
The seven inspections that exceeded the scheduling window with overdue dates falling inside the pandemic time frame, and the one overdue inspection due to the harsh winter condition, were not counted in the calculation of the overdue inspections. Only the five inspections that were completed overdue due to staffing issues and prioritizing the more risk significant items were counted in the calculation of overdue inspections for determining the rating for this indicator.
The team reviewed 40 inspection reports. Based on the review of the inspection reports and interviews with the inspectors and program manager, inspection findings were communicated by formal correspondence, including a copy of the report to the licensee.
During the review period, inspections findings for 17 inspections conducted were communicated to the licensee beyond the 30-day requirement, and inspections findings for 3 inspections conducted were communicated to the licensee beyond the 45-day requirement for team inspections. Inspection findings for 2 inspections were delayed due to additional communications with the licensee post inspections. The findings for one inspection were sent to the licensee 2 days late because the due date fell on a Saturday. The findings for another inspection were sent to the licensee 37 days late due to the Notice of Violation issuance and the licensees attorney review. Delays for communicating the findings for 13 inspections conducted were due to staffing issues, work backlog, and illness. The inspection reports were signed by the inspectors and reviewed by the program manager prior to being sent to the licensee.
Based on the review of the 40 inspection reports and interviews with inspectors, including the Program Manager, the team determined that non-compliance findings and observations during the review period were communicated to the licensee, and corrective actions were properly taken by the licensee.
c.
Evaluation The team determined, that during the review period, Wyoming met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a, except for:
There is a plan to perform any overdue inspections and reschedule any missed or deferred inspections; or a basis has been established for not performing overdue inspections or rescheduling any missed or deferred inspections.
Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner.
When licensees are inspected at intervals that exceed the NRC IMC 2801 or compatible Agreement State procedures by more than 10 percent but less than 25 percent, and some of the inspection findings are delayed or not communicated to the licensee within 30 days, the MD 5.6 indicates that a finding of satisfactory, but needs improvement, should be considered under the indicator Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program.
Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Wyomings performance with respect to the indicator, Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program be found satisfactory, but needs improvement.
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 6 d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Wyomings performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory, but needs improvement.
3.3 Technical Quality of Uranium Recovery Inspections Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide reasonable assurance that licensee activities are carried out in a safe and secure manner. Accompaniments of inspectors performing inspections and the critical evaluation of inspection records are used to assess the technical quality of an inspection program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-102, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Inspections, and evaluated Wyomings performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Inspections of URP licensed activities focus on health, safety, and security.
Inspection findings are well-founded and properly documented in reports.
Management promptly reviews inspection results.
Procedures are in place and used to help identify root causes and poor licensee performance.
Inspections address previously identified open items, non-compliance, and violations.
Inspection findings lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action.
Supervisors, or senior staff as appropriate, conduct annual accompaniments of each URP inspector to assess performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies.
Inspection guides are consistent with NRC guidance.
An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the inspection program.
b.
Discussion During the review period, Wyoming performed 45 inspections. The team reviewed 40 inspection reports. The reports covered various URP facilities in different stages of operations. The reports included follow-up findings and observations from previous inspections, including licensees corrective actions. The reports were thorough and complete. The inspection reports included sufficient information to support the inspection findings. Based on the review of the 40 inspection reports and interviews with the inspectors and program manager, inspection findings were communicated to the licensee by formal correspondence, including a copy of the report. The inspection reports were signed by the inspectors and reviewed by the program manager prior to being sent to the licensee.
Based on the review of the 40 inspection reports and interviews with inspectors including the Program Manager, the team determined that non-compliance findings and observations during the review period were communicated to the licensee, and corrective actions were taken by the licensee.
The team reviewed the supervisory accompaniments of the qualified inspectors and the program manager for 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Supervisory accompaniments were not conducted in 2020 due to pandemic. The team noted that TI-003 states supervisory accompaniments of all qualified inspectors may not be performed in each calendar year
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 7 impacted by the pandemic. These impacts were outside Wyomings control, with no health and safety impacts, and would not affect the overall indicator rating. The accompaniments for one inspector in 2021 and for the program manager in 2022 were not documented.
Wyoming stated that both accompaniments was completed but not formally documented by the manager. The accompaniments for 2023 were complete. Since the team concluded that Wyoming continued to maintain public health, safety, and security during the pandemic, the supervisory accompaniments that were missed due the pandemic were not considered by the team in establishing the overall rating for this performance indicator.
During the week of June 17, 2024, a Team member accompanied two qualified inspectors at the lost Creek and Nichols Ranch in-situ URP facilities. The inspectors were well prepared for the inspections. The inspector held entrance and exit meetings with the licensee management and technical personnel and communicated the scope of the inspection and findings clearly. During the entrance and exit meetings, the inspectors discussed the follow-up findings and observations from the previous inspection. The inspectors demonstrated adequate knowledge of the site conditions and requirements of the license.
The inspectors conducted facility tours and reviewed records. The inspectors interviewed the licensee personnel, observed activities/operations in progress, and performed independent radiation surveys. Overall, the inspectors performed well. The team provided feedback to the inspectors related to certain activities conducted by the licensee such as following As Low As Reasonably Achievable principals, proper survey and wipe test techniques, and use of appropriate instrumentation. During the lost Creek site inspection, the team member discussed the use of appropriate instrumentation by the inspectors based on the type of the operations at the facility. The inspectors used properly calibrated survey instruments. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B.
Wyoming has a sufficient number and types of radiation survey instruments. Instrument calibrations appeared to be accurate and complete. Wyoming maintains a database tracking the calibration, maintenance, and response check, of the instruments.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Wyoming met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Wyomings performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Wyomings performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of licensing actions can have a direct bearing on public health and safety, as well as security. An assessment of licensing procedures, implementation of those procedures, and documentation of communications and associated actions between the Wyoming licensing staff and regulated community is a significant indicator of the overall quality of the licensing program.
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 8 a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-110 and evaluated Wyomings performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Licensing action reviews are thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed.
Applicable URP recovery guidance documents are available to reviewers and are followed.
Essential elements of license applications have been submitted and meet current NRC or Agreement State regulatory guidance (e.g., financial assurance, etc.).
URP license reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases they review independently.
License conditions are stated clearly and can be inspected.
Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time.
Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensees inspection and enforcement history.
Licensing practices for risk significant radioactive materials are appropriately implemented including fingerprinting orders (Part 37 equivalent).
Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, controlled, and secured.
b.
Discussion During the review period, Wyoming performed 32 radioactive materials licensing actions.
The team reviewed documentation for 12 actions, which included reviews by 6 current and former license reviewers. The team evaluated casework which included the following license types and actions: combination of alternate concentration limits, request to allow grazing, decommissioning reports, completion review reports, change of control and partial site release.
The licensing actions examined by the team were found to be complete, consistent, and decisions were appropriately documented and of overall acceptable technical quality. The team noted that Wyoming communicates routinely with their licensees to ensure they understand requirements and the licensing process. The deficiency letters are well written and fully explanatory of the outstanding issues. The action tracking database is thorough and helpful in identifying the status and flow of the pending and completed actions.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Wyoming met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommended that Wyomings performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Wyomings performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 9 3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of response to incidents and allegations of safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health, safety and security. An assessment of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures internal and external coordination, timely incident reporting, and investigative and follow-up actions, are a significant indicator of the overall quality of the incident response and allegation programs.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-110 and evaluated Wyomings performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
URP incident response, investigation, and allegation procedures are in place and followed.
Response actions are appropriate, well-coordinated, and timely.
On-site responses are performed when incidents have potential health, safety, or security significance.
Appropriate follow-up actions are taken to ensure prompt compliance by licensees.
Follow-up inspections are scheduled and completed, as necessary.
Notifications are made to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center for incidents requiring a 24-hour or immediate notification to the Agreement State or the NRC.
Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database and closed when required information is obtained.
Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner.
Concerned individuals are notified of investigation conclusions.
Concerned individuals identities are protected, as allowed by law.
b.
Discussion The Wyoming program did not have any reportable incidents during the review period.
Wyoming has written procedures for handling, reviewing, analyzing, responding and follow-up of incidents and allegations.
In accordance with Wyomings Event and Allegation Response Procedural Manual Uranium Recovery Program - DEQ WY dated August 2017, when notified of an incident, management determines the appropriate level of response, which ranges from an immediate response to an in-office review or follow-up during the next routine inspection.
Those determinations are made based on both the circumstances and the health and safety significance of the incident. Because Wyoming did not have any incidents during the review period, the team could not evaluate the incident notifications and determine if its response to those incidents were thorough, well balanced, complete, and comprehensive.
Since Wyoming did not have any incidents during the review period, the team was not able to evaluate Wyomings reporting of incidents to the NRCs Headquarters Operations Officer.
During the review period, allegations were received. Of the five allegations, three were referred by the NRC. The team evaluated all five allegations. The team found that staff took prompt and appropriate action in response to each of the concerns raised. The team determined that all allegations reviewed were appropriately closed, concerned individuals were notified timely of the actions taken, as appropriate, and concerned individuals
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 10 identities were protected whenever possible in accordance with State law. No impacts related to the pandemic were noted in this indicator.
For allegations, Wyoming has a portal into which all concerns and spills are placed; it allows allegers or URP staff to place allegation information into a format which provides for anonymity for the alleger. In addition, procedures are in place if the alleger requests No Contact with URP.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Wyoming met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Wyomings performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Wyomings performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS As noted in Section 3.0, the Wyoming Agreement State Program is limited to the regulatory oversight of uranium recovery facilities; therefore, only the non-common performance Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements was reviewed.
4.1 Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements State statutes should authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the States agreement with the NRC. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health, safety, and security. The State must be authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements, such as regulations and licenses. The NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety should be adopted in a time frame so that the effective date of the State requirement is no later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC's final rule. Other program elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program should be adopted and implemented by an Agreement State within 6 months following NRC designation. A Program Element Table indicating the Compatibility Categories for those program elements other than regulations can be found on the NRC Web site at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-107 and evaluated Wyomings performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives. A complete list of regulation amendments can be found on the NRC Regulation Toolbox.
The Agreement State program does not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of radioactive materials under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 11 Regulations adopted by the Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety were adopted no later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC regulation.
Other program elements, as defined in SA-200, Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety Identification for NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements, that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program, have been adopted and implemented within 6 months of NRC designation.
The State statutes authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the agreement.
The State is authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements such as regulations and licenses.
Sunset requirements, if any, do not negatively impact the effectiveness of the States regulations.
b.
Discussion Wyoming became an Agreement State on September 30, 2018. Wyomings current effective statutory authority is contained in the Environmental Quality Act §§ 35-11-101 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act §§ 16-3-101 et seq., of the Wyoming Statutes. The Department is designated as the States radiation control agency. Changes to the URPs governing statues was passed with House Bill HB0061 in 2023 which added language allowing Wyoming to pursue amending their agreement with the NRC to include Source Material Associated with Milling. Wyoming is currently in the process of amending the agreement. However, this House Bill did not affect the radiation control program.
Wyomings administrative rulemaking process takes approximately 12-18 months from drafting to finalizing a rule. The public, NRC, other agencies, and potentially impacted licensees and registrants are offered an opportunity to comment during the process.
Comments were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, before the regulations were finalized and signed by the Governor which is the longest part of the multistep process (which can take up to 75 days). The team noted that the States rules and regulations were not subject to sunset laws.
Wyoming has submitted one proposed regulation (RATS ID 2019-2 Organizational Changes and Conforming Amendments) due for state adoption on December 30, 2022; however, Wyoming promulgated these regulations on November 17, 2022, and will submit the final regulations for NRC review and approval.
In addition, RATS ID 2020-3 (Miscellaneous Corrections) due for state adoption on November 16, 2023, was also promulgated on November 17, 2022, and will be submitted to the NRC for review and approval.
None of the amendments were overdue for State adoption at the time of submission.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Wyoming met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 4.1.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Wyomings performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, be found satisfactory.
Final Wyoming IMPEP Report Page 12 d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Wyomings performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
5.0
SUMMARY
The team found Wyomings performance to be satisfactory for the following performance indicators: Technical Staffing and Training; Technical Quality of Uranium Recovery Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; The team also found Wyomings performance to be satisfactory but needs improvement for the following performance indicator:
Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program.
The team did not make any new recommendations and there were no recommendations from the previous review for the team to consider.
Accordingly, the MRB Chair found the Wyoming radiation control program adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. Based on the results of the IMPEP review, the next periodic meeting will take place in approximately 2 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 4 years.
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Inspector Accompaniments
APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Areas of Responsibility Farrah Gaskins, Region I Team Leader Technical Staffing and Training Jackie Cook, Region IV Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements Antonio Gonzalez, Region IV Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Muhammadali Abbaszadeh, Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program State of Texas Technical Quality of Uranium Recovery Inspections Inspector Accompaniments
APPENDIX B INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review:
Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.: SUA 1598 License Type: ISR Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 06/17/2024 Inspectors initials: CN Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: SUA 1597 License Type: ISR Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 06/19/2024 Inspectors initials: NS
WYOMING MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE October 10, 2024, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. EST, via Microsoft Teams Management Review Board:
John Lubinski, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Acting MRB Chair; Jessica Bielecki, Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking, Agreement States and Fee Policy; Robert Lewis, Deputy Director, NMSS; Mohammed Shuaibi, Deputy Regional Administrator, NRC Region III; and Sarah Sanderlin, Organization of Agreement States representative to the MRB, from the state of New Jersey.
Wyoming Program Management and Staff (via Teams):
Kyle Wendtland, Administrator, Land Quality Division, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality; and Brandi OBrien, Uranium Recovery Program Manager, Land Quality Division, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality; and Monte Buchanan, Land Quality Division, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
IMPEP Team:
Farrah Gaskins, Team Leader, Region I; Jackie Cook, RSAO, Region IV; Antonio Gonzalez, Region IV; and Muhammadali Abbaszadeh, State of Texas.
NRC and OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC:
Kevin Williams, NMSS; Dafna Silberfeld, NMSS; Tammy Bloomer, Region IV; Adelaide Giantelli, NMSS; Jackson Barth, NMSS Allyce Bolger, NMSS, Sherrie Flaherty, NMSS; Lisa Forney, Region I Robert Johnson, NMSS; Jeff Lynch, NMSS; Karen Meyer, NMSS; Courtney Eckstein, State of Indiana Brenda Tubbs, State of Indiana Kaci Studer, State of Indiana Kevin Stahl, State of Indiana
ML24285A150 OFFICE R-I/DNMS NMSS/MSST/SLPB NMSS/MSST NMSS/MSST/SMPB NAME FGaskins RJohnson LSmith AGiantelli DATE Oct 11, 2024 Oct 11, 2024 Oct 11, 2024 Oct 15, 2024 OFFICE NMSS/MSST R-II/DRP/RPB4
/HARO NMSS NAME KWilliams APatz JLubinski DATE Oct 15, 2024 Oct 18, 2024 Oct 21, 2024