ML19326E063
| ML19326E063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/02/1980 |
| From: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Bader M OREGON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250526 | |
| Download: ML19326E063 (2) | |
Text
_
09 Es
=
nauq 7
gf h,
UNITED STATES p,
NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION 3,
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%.....}
E Re f: SA/RJD Max Bader, M.D.
State Public Health Officer Health Division Department of Human Resources 1400 S.W. 5th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201.
Dear Dr. Bader:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Doda held with you and Dr. Parrott following our review and evaluation of the Oregon radiation control program.
The review covered the principal administrative and technical aspects of the program. This included an examination of the program's funding and personnel resources; the program's licensing, inspection and enforcement activities; the program's emergency response capabilities for agreement materials; and the status of the State's radiation control regulations.
A field ucompaniment of a State inspector was not accomplished during the and will be scheduled next month, i.e. during July 1980. You will be r~
informed of the results of this accompaniment after it is completed. Bastd on our partial review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (HRC) and the State of Oregon, the staff believes that the Oregon program for regulation of agreement material is adequate to protect the public health and safety, and is compatible with the NRC's program for regulation of similar materials.
We find that the staffing level per 100 licenses, the budget based on the total number of licenses administered by the Radiation Control Section, and the percentage of staff effort spent in training during the review period cre all acceptable with respect to NRC reconrnended guidelines. This is connendable and produces a responsible approach to the State's overall radiation control program. However, we believe the program can be improved in the following ways.
We recommend that written procedures be developed for :<calated enforcement action.
These are procedures that go beyond the routine licensee notifications of violations; e.g., order issuance, radioactive material impoundment, license revocation, etc. We believe that written procedures are necessary so that a State can respond adequately and in a timely manner to incidents involving agreement materials.
8007250 8
1 Max Bader, M.D.
2-We reconnend that the State adopt amended regulations to provide the authcrity to inspect licensees for packaging and transportation activities relative to the Department of Transportation requirements and plan for staff resources needed for the early implementation of these inspection activities.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter to Dr. Parrott with comments regarding technical aspects of the program.
I am also enclosing a second copy of each letter which should be placed in your State Public Document Room or otherwise made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to our representative during the review by you and the entire radiation control program staff.
Sincerely, Robert G. Ryan, Dir!ctor Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Ms. Kristine Gebbie Dr. Marshall Parrott NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room 4
'& dy,,
bly=/K
~
~
- ln u%
' [i _
'}
NUCLEAR REGULAl'ORY COMMISSION k
UNITED ';TATEs e
3,.
E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 e
4
,0 9
M.
2 1920 Ref: SA/RJD Marshall Parrott, D.Sc., Manager Radiation Control Section Division of Health Depetment of Human Resources 1400 South West Fifth Avt.ue Portland, Oregon 97201
Dear Dr. Parrott:
This is to confirm the comments made to you by R. J. Doda at the conclusion of the recent radition control program review.
A field accompaniment of one of your inspection staff was not accomplished during this review and will be scheduled next month, i.e. during July 1980.
You will be informed of the results of this accompaniment after it is completed.
Based on the results of our partial review, the staff believes that the Oregon program for control of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program for regulation of similar materials.
Specific comments and recomendations resulting from our review are listed below.
I would appreciate your study of our recommendations and receiving your comments regarding them.
We recocmend that written procedures be developed for escalated enforcement action.
We have attached to this letter information on the essential elements of an escalated enforcement program, which was sent to the States in January 1980. !!e believe that written procedures are recessary and that all appropriate personnel be instructed in the application of these procedures. We have enclosed a copy of our letter to Dr. M. Bader, which.lso recommended the development of these written procedures.
We recomend that the Health Division's draft of the Radiological Accident Response Manual be completed at an early date.
Your efforts, thus far, on this m nual appear to have produced a good basis for the final develop;ent of the maiual.
This particular project, as well as several other instances noted in our review, demonstrated creditable efforts by your staff during the past year.
We recommend that you adapt regulations compatible with recent NRC amendments, particularly those that will provide the State with the authority to inspect licensees to the Department af Transportat. ion's requirements for packaging and transportation of radioactive material. This was discussed at some length with your staff. We understand from our review that you plan to make a number of
" housekeeping" changes in your regulations by the end of 1980 and that you will attempt to include the above D0T modifit : tion also.
Marshall Parrott, D.Sc. We recommend that an early inspection of Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories be performed. Our compliance file review disclosed that:
(1) the last documented inspection was performed on April 26,197E, (2) an inspection was attempted, but not performed, on January 31,1979,(3) an inspection report (approximately October 1979) was lost, and (4) a response (30-day incident report) from Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories to the State was overdue as of June 6,1980.
In addition, an NRC notification to the States on March 6,1980 requested that the States keep the NRC informed of any serious or chronic compliance problems with this particular licensee.
It might also be noted that the PTL license is in timely renewal status at the present time, pending an answer from the licensee to a request by the State for additional information.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to Mr. Doda by you and the entire radiation control program staff.
Sincerely, h/'
G. Wayne rr, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program Office of State Prograns
Enclosures:
Ltr to Dr. M. Bader Ltr re Escalated Enforcement Actions cc: Dr. M. Bader Ms. Kristine Gebbie NRC Public Document Room, w/ encl.
State Public Document Room, w/ encl.
1 l