ML19290C636
| ML19290C636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/07/1980 |
| From: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Bingham E LABOR, DEPT. OF, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMIN. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001220299 | |
| Download: ML19290C636 (3) | |
Text
Wk jo UNITED STATES
+
g e
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 E
o
+9
,o JAN 7 1980 Eula Bingham,'Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health U. S. Department of Labor Washington, D. C.
20210
Dear Dr. Bingham:
Under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized to transfer to States, through an agreement, some of its regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials. Before entering into an agreement, the Commission must find that the State has a program which is adequate to protect the public health and safety, and is compatible with the Commis-sion's regulatory program.
Former AEC Chairman Seaborg's letter of May 2,1965, to then Secretary Willard Wirtz, informed the Department of Labor of the Commission's plans to make formal annual redeterminations cf the adequacy and compatibility of regulatory programs of the Agreement States. The letter also stated that we would keep the Department of Labor advised of compatibility determinations by the Commission as to new Agreement States, and of our annual redeterminations of continuing compatibility.
I am pleased to report to you the review of the regulatory programs of the 25 Agreement States for calendar year 1978 (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennes.see, Texas, and Washington).
With respect to the adequacy of the Agreement State programs to protect the public health and safety, we determined that the programs of all 25 Agreement States were adequate for calendar year 1978.
With respect to compatibility, we consider twenty-three States have programs to be compatible for purposes of reporting to the U. S.
Department of Labor (OSHA) as folicws:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.
1788ljg som 79 9
Eula Bingham, Ph.D. ~
For calendar year 1977, we de? erred a determination of compatibility on four States because they had not acted to adopt regulations equivalent to 10 CFR Part 19. These States were Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York.
We noted that these States already had requirements in their regulations concerning training and instruction in radiation safety and notices to employees which corresponded to the requirements which were formerly con-tained in 10 CFR Part 20. prior to adoption of 10 CFR Part 19. We also noted that revising and updating State regulations is an activity requiring significant manpower effort, sometimes requires line item appropriations, and, in some States, is a complex procedure which may include several levels of internal reviews and public hearings. These factors can extend the time necessary to put into effect~new regulations. All of the four States had committed to act to adopt regulaticas equivalent to 10 CFR Part 19.
Two States completed such action in 1978 (Nebraska and New York) and as noted above, those programs have been determined to be compatible. The remaining States (Nevada and New Mexico) began action in 1978 to adopt these regulations.
New Mexico adopted an equivalent to 10 CFR Part 19 in November 1979. Nevada has prepared revised regulations including a Part 19 equivalent, and expects to adopt them in January of 1980.
Although this report covers calendar year 1978, situations in three States have caused us some concern in 1979. During our regular reviews of the California and Florida programs, we were unable to determine that.
the programs were adequate to protect the public health and safety.
In California, administration and licensing were problem areas.
In Florida, salaries and funding were problem areas.
Staffing and compliance activi-ties were problem areas in both States.
Follow-up meetings were held with both Stater during 1979 and efforts, by high level State management, are continuing to resolve the deficiencies. We are working with these States to assure that the problems will be satisfactorily resolved.
In Arizona, the American Atomics Corporation, a manufacturer of tritium activated luminous signs and devices, was found to be releasing tritium to the environment in excess of regulatory limits. As a result of subsequent deliberations involving American Atomics, the Arizona Atomic Energy Commission, Governor Bruce Babbitt, and the NRC, American Atomics was ordered shut down. Most of its tritium inventory has been removed.
The plant will be decommissioned and the licensee has surrendered its license and does not plan to seek relicensing at this location.
The nandling of this matter by the State raised a number of questions 1788lif
Eula Bingham, Ph.D. concerning the State's ability to protect the public health and safety. We have made a number of recommendations to the State, including appropriate change to the State's legislation, and we are continuing to ' pursue the matter with the State.
NRC is now in the process of revising its criteria for evaluation of Agreement State radiation control programs and evaluating other actions to improve the perfomance of the States as well as monitor-ing their programs.
Sincerely, b
l Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs
.5 1788lih A/r 4 A
/