ML20011E848
| ML20011E848 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/06/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dicus G ARKANSAS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E849 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002220591 | |
| Download: ML20011E848 (18) | |
Text
.
. _.. ~
A-i j[
I k
[ym RE:qk UNITED STATts l
l!
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
g a
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20066 February 6,1990 CHAIRMAN i
i
(
E Ms. Greta J.JDieus, Chairman i
l
. Organization of Agreement. States "J
Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street 1
.Little Rock, Arkansas.
72205-3867
-i l-h
Dear Chairman Dicus:
Thank you for'your November 16, 1989 letter conveying the l
' comments and recommendations of the Organization of Agreement
.i States <(OAS) as discussed at the All Agreement States meeting in October 1989.. I am. pleased that you. regard.the All.
Agreement.. States meeting as a useful forum for.the exchange i
of. views'between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and
-the AgreementEStates, and that members of the NRC staff contributed to the= success of the October meeting.
The a
Commission's' responses:to the-issues you raised are enclosed.
The Commission-shares your view-that effective communication
'is.a critical part of the NRC Agreement State Program.
Although.we'have issued numerous.All Agreement States letters on various. issues.of, mutual interest:and--held meetings and workshops-to provide-forums for face-to-face exchanges of 4
information and-views including follow-up on, items identi-fied by the Agreement States, the staff-has not followed up i
with' written communications to the Chairman of the-0AS.
I want to assure.you, however, that we will'do so in the future.-
Both'the NRC.and.the Agreement States'have a responsibility-to preserve and strengthen our regulatory partnership.
In that regard', your suggestion that periodic meetings be held y
between 0AS and our Office of State Programs is an excellent idea.
We also will look for appropriate opportunities. to encourage.the OAS to attend Commission 1 briefings on issues
'that: impact the Agreement States.
We would note that in-formal comments to the NRC staff during our review meetings, All Agreement: States ^ meetings, and workshops indicate that NRC communications with Agreement States, including All i
Agreement States letters and NRC Information Notices and L
Newsletters which contain pertinent health and safety.
1 ik 9002220591 900206 P
\\\\
PDR-COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PNV p
e 1
j
9, i
t licensing, and compliance information, are not always reaching cognizant State program supervisors and staffs.
We would appreciate your help in assuring that these communica-tions reach the appropriate licensing and inspection staffs.
We also encourage more Agreement States to hold periodic workshops and meetings for their licensees.
NRC staff will be glad to contribute to these meetings as resources permit.
The Commission greatly vafues'the Agreement State Program and the open and frank communications between the Agreement States and NRC on which the success of the Program largely depends.
You can be assured that the NRC will give OAS comments and recommendations prompt and close attention.
Sincerely, nnW.
Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosure:
- As stated i
i f
i Enclosure NRC Respot'se to Comments and Recommendations of the Organization of Agreement States (OAS)
- P A.I. Comment In keeping with the procedural format for NRC Agreement States program review letters, namely that they are sent to the highest administrative level of the Program's Department, the Agreement i
States have determined that our letter of issues and concerns be directed to the Chairman of the Commission.
i i
Response
The Commission welcomes your letters.
A.2. Comment The Agreement States request the NRC to consider supporting quarterly meetings between the OAS Chairperson (or a designee) and SLITP to discuss items of mutual interest and concern.
Response
We believe that periodic meetings between the OAS Chairman and representatives of our Office of State Programs would be an excellent vehicle for discussing items of mutual interest and concern. However, we would suggest that, rather than schedule such j
meetings on a quarterly basis, we should utilize the annual L
1
I.: \\{
l rh-C lj 2
o l
Conference of Radiation Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) and the All Agreement States meetings for this purpose. Additional meetings or telephone discussions could be arranged to handle specific issues as L
the need arises.
j=
A.3. Comment The Agreement States request the opportunity to have a representative attend the " events meeting" held each month. We understand that events occurring in, and managed by, Agreement States = are discussed and the discussions would benefit from input by the States.
Response
We believe that State participation in these meetings is useful and lt helps strengthen the partnership between the Agreement States and NRC in protecting the public' health and safety. At the December 1989 " events meeting," for example, Mr. Aubrey Godwin, Director of i
the Alabama radiation control program, discussed generic regulatory issues raised by a well-logging incident.
The staff will invite States individually to become involved when a State has a generic issue, such as the one presented by Alabama, and will provide future
" events meeting" agendas to the Agreement States for their review 1;
and determination of interest. We have no objection to States or 1
l OAS representatives attending the monthly meetings, but we lack the resources to fund routine attendance. We encourage the Agreement States to continue to keep us infonned of events.
-*f P
y-.
..-.e
--w
'l i
f 70 i
3-j
.i A.4a. Comment i
We request the NRC to arrange to have Dr. John Poston present a course relative-to internal dosimetry consistent with 10 CFR Part 20 to.the Agreement States; preferably at least one course being l
\\
e presented in each NRC Reg' ion.
\\
Response
i We had intended to schedule the requested internal dosimetry course after final approval of the proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20.
l However, we have invited two Agreement States personnel to attend an initial, general internal dosimetry course being presented by NRC's Technical Training Center in Chattanooga Tennessee, in February.
If feedback indicates this course meets the State's needs, addi-tional opportunities to attend this course will be announced to the 1
States. We also will continue to keep the States informed on the status of the proposed amendments to Part 20.
b.
Comment
-The Agreement States oppose the reassertion of NRC authority over on-site low level waste disposal at reactors.
Response
The Commission is aware of your strong objections to the proposed rule on reassertion of authority.
During the Low-level Waste l
Workshop in September 1989, the staff discussed this issue in
i j
)
4 1
i l
detail. The staff is currently preparing for Comission considera-I tion an evaluation of the States' views and other public coments f
received on the proposed rule and a recomendation on whether to proceed with the rulemaking.
^
t c.
Coment The NRC should complete the General License Study and provide a report to the Agreement States.
\\
Response
.e The States were provided a copy of the draft General Licensing Study for coments on March 7,1989. Our records reflect that only i
11 States responded. The Commission was briefed on September 14, 1989, on the status of the General License Study.
Following the briefing, the staff was requested by the Commission-to develop additional infonnation and present another briefing. We will infonn the OAS when this additional briefing, which will be open to public attendance, is scheduled so that 0AS presentatives may attend.
d.
Comment The NRC should fulfill its objectives under the Consolidation Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by adopting a radioactive materials license and inspection fee schedule that reflects the real costs of implementing the radioactive materials program and recovering 45% of the costs.
4j
..i
Response
The current status of radioactive materials license and inspection fees is that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise the schedule of fees in 10 CFR 170 was published in the Federal _ Register (54 FR 49763-71) on December 1, 1989,'for a 60-day comment period. This
~
proposed rule, in conjunction with our overall. fee program, is consistent with the. requirement to collect 45% of the agency's cost.
Individual offices or licensee cctegories do not have to meet the 45% criterion, provided the agency as a whole does.
5 Public meetings to discuss the proposed changes were held in mid-January 1990 in Regions I, III, and IV, although little interest or input was expressed.
It is expected that a final rule will be promulgated by May 1990. Copies of the Federal Register notice have l
been provided to the Agreeinent States under separate cover.
i e.
Connent The Organization of Agreement States supports the NRC, CRCPD, and the State of Texas in their efforts to develop a national program to improve the health and safety aspects related to the field of industrial radiography (IR). However, the Agreement States have some concern about the direction that is being taken to accomplish this national program. Specifically, the radiation control directors of some States question their legislative authority to mandate certification of industrial radiographers only through a single
r l
F non-regulatory third-party, such as ASNT. These States have m
La indicated that their legislative authority will most likely allow
.them to recognize a non-regulatory entity such as ASNT as a
. certifying body, but they must have the latitude to recognize
~
other certifying bodies as wel1.
t.
If the Agreement States are to be encouraged to adopt compatible regulations in less than the customary three-year period, we feel it is very important to have an opportunity to review and comment on any proposed rule on this matter before it goes to the Comission.
Response
We understand the OAS concerns and have worked with the State of Texas, the CRCPD, and the American Society for Non-Destuctive Testing (ASNT) to satisfy them. The Commission has been briefed on this subject by the NRC staff. The State of Texas and the Conference representatives also participated in this briefing. We have also taken steps to clarify NRC plans for rulemaking, including issuance of the November 24, 1989 All Agreement States letter from Carlton Kammerer and coverage of this issue at the joint Agreement States /NRC Spccial Topics Workshop in Downers' Grove, Illinois, on November 27 - December 1, 1989. As discussed at the workshop and in
.t the letter, the Commission supports third-party certification and has issued a proposed rule to recognize such certification for radiographers. We have been keeping the States informed of E
o
.o
y h
i !
l s
developments through All Agreement States letters and have worked closely with the Conference and the State of Texas. NRC plans a j
4 F
second rulemaking on this subject, as explained in our November 24, 1989 letter, and the OAS is requested to'_ identify two representa-
~
tives to work with NRC st'aff in developing this second rulemaking.
j The representatives can provide input on the issue of other potential certifying bodies, and other issues as well. We want to encourage'the OAS to cooperate fully in establishing and imple-menting a national radiography testing and certification program, i
i f.
Comment _
We wish to express our concern with NRC recommending the use of l
different shipping and packaging configurations for private carriers
. and common carriers, specifically for_ Spec 2-T containers. We believe the same conditions should apply for transport in both cases and therefore the same shipping-packaging configuration requirements should apply ~and be met. We are also concerned that the inspection and enforcement notice sent to industrial radiographers is not clear regarding the structural requirements for boxes used in private shipments.
Response
+
We do not agree with the OAS concern. The practice of permitting different shipment cons;derations for private and common carriers
r
.\\
p r
o' ;
L provides needed flexibility in regulating the transport of radio-active materials without causing undue risk to public health and
'k i
safety.
For example, the greater radiation level limitations J
(49CFR-173.441) for radioactive materials packages transported by exclusive use (private) c'arrie"rs than for those transported by comon carriers are acceptable because of the greater degree of control that is exercised during exclusive use shipment.
+
l The' NRC Bulletin for industrial radiographers did not include structural requirements for the box because detailed' requirements 5
or specifications were not necessary.
The purpose of the box was simply to provide additional assurance that the radiography device would not be free to inadvertently fall from the truck, as happened in the Texas accident.
Since any number of different box designs would be adequate for this purpose, the staff did not believe it was necessary to specify detailed requirements for the box.
i A.5. Coment When the NRC responds to-the States' issues, the response statement frequently indicates that the issue has been forwarded to NRC staff without stipulating what part of the NRC staff may address the issue. We request that the response indicate what program in the U.S. NRC will address the issue.
l 9
Response-In our future responses, we will identify the responsible NRC'
.l i
program office. There may be some cases, however, when it is not
[
clear which program office has the lead in addressing a particular i
concern at the time we re'spond'to you.
.I B.
Coment i
During our annual meeting, it was suggested by U.S. NRC personnel
- that some type of selection process be initiated whereby the NRC would pick a "Best Agreement State" and award the State a " Gold Star." Additional gold stars might be awarded to States that have demonstrated some extraordinary activity during the year.
In keeping with a partnership relationship between the Agreement States and the NRC, we express strong disagreement with the " Gold Star" program that was proposed and request immediate withdrawal of this 3
concept.
Response
The " Gold Star" program was a proposal for discussion purposes only and, based upon the lack of positive feedback, is not being pursued further. We are open to suggestions for other ways to recognize in a noncompetitive way those Agreement States and their program directors and staff, whose programs have consistently achieved high levels of excellence in meeting the goals of protecting the public health and safety and compatibility with NRC requirements.
Such success deserves recognition.
~
~
i;
['
- C.-
Comnent i-During our annual meeting it was resolved that: Whereas there is an increasing tendency of the NRC to declare rules to be a matter of compatibility without adequate input of the Agreement States and-i whereas compatibility efforts are incumbent on both the NRC and the i
Agreement States, we ask that a Task Force of NRC and Agreement State personnel be estab1?shed to develop criteria for making such f
compatibility determirations.
{
Response
The staff policy is to provide the Agreement States the opportunity to comment on proposed rules involving compatibility prior to Commission review. We.do agree, however, that the subject of criteria for compatibility determinations could benefit from a review. We plan to examine this issue and will seek input from the States at the appropriate time. The staff believes, however, that it is premature to fonn a task force.
D.
Comment NRC Evaluation and Acceptance of Sealed Sources Manufactured by DOE or its Ancestral Predecessors. The OAS proffers the following l
Resolution:
i s
! )
flesolution WHEREAS. the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has manufactured i
L sealed radioactive sources that may not be equivalent to current L
manufacturing standards; l
WHEREAS,recenteventsha'veraisedquestionsregardingthequality control used in the manufacture of these sources; i
WHEREAS DOE has not been able to quickly identify the reason for the source to leak; WHEREAS, DOE cannot provide guidance on the potential for other WESF capsules to leak; WHEREAS, the above identified issues bring into question the a
integrity of WESF capsules manufactured by DOE; WHEREAS, in-addition to the WESF capsules there are other DOE manufactured radioactive sources licensed by the Agreement States; WHEREAS, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) has accepted the evaluation of radioactive sealed sources
- based on infonnation provided by DOE - the manufacturer - rather than conducting its own evaluation; WHEREAS, the above facts call 10to question the integrity of other radioactive sealed sources manufactured by DOE; r
Now, therefore, be it hereby resolved that the NRC should take the following actions:
k 1.
Identify all radioactive sources manufactured by DOE which are currently in use or in storage at locations other than DOE facilities; t
QW
% iv
~
m
(; < y_
.a
-2.-
Perform an independent _ evaluation of each_model source; 3.
-Identify any model sources which should be recalled;-
4.
Identify any model sources to which additional radiation safety
_ requirements should be applied as part of licensure; 5.~
' Evaluate _ safety and disposal requirements asso:iated with these sources - both as part of routine operations and'as part of an emergency response' action to a leaking source;
.6.
Evaluate its' policy of accepting information from sealed source manufacturers and/or distributors without conducting an independent evaluation in consultation with appropriate experts; and a;
.I 7.
. Present the results of this evaluation to the_ Agreement States, j
1 As we believe these first four issues are the most important to our ly joint responsibilities in protecting the public health and-safety,_
- j we respectfully request an NRC response to tha issues'as soon as j
h possible.
q
Response
l-1 We share the concerns which prompted the Agreement State resolution-
~
l.'
on sealed sources and'have directed-the staff _to provide a paper on L
this matter. The staff will keep the Agreement States infomed on -
l this issur. The Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety 1
within'tra Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards has the -
lead. A.iditionally, please note thc following:
4 i
n s
- \\
m, gwr
,3
.j 1
c j-n; e.
w
. 13 -
" It has-always been NRC's-standard procedure to evaluate all t
sealed' sources prior to licensing whether they were unufactured.
by DOE or a. private party.
- We have normally relied on the reliability and accuracy of-
- c the data provided by. ap'plicaints.
Until DOE issues its final investigation report, we cannot draw fina) conclusions 4
as to_ the accuracy of the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility capsule data provided by DOE to NRC.
t^
' With respect to the Agreement State request to identify all DOE sources currently at licensed facilities, if our findings reveal a'need to identify all models and-types of DOE-L sources or their actual locations, we will' need the assistance of.
I the Agreement States in identifying which sources are located in their States.
i I
l,
[
We welcome reports.from States on any problems with DOE sources'
)
to factor into-our examination of this matter.
r
'. E.
- Coment
?,
k The Agreement States believe that a training program which provides 4
o.
for. the exchange of State radiation control personnel among the
[
various States would be beneficial. We recomend that the CRCPD 1
pursue with the NRC the establishment of an exchange program.
1 y
l 4
mg
.s
' 14:.
1 h
Response.
We endorse your suggestion and will ask Mr.. Charles:Hardin, Executive Secretary of the Conference, to work with the OAS to
- develop 'a program for State-to-State exchanges.
In addition, the
~
~
NRC has invited Agreement State representatives to assist in
. selected reviews of other Agreement State programs. We plan to.
-continue and expand this program as another way of furthering-State-
.f
.to-State exchanges.
l o
.F.
Coment The States'ask that the NRC notify the State Radiation Control-l.
Program prior to conducting inspections in the State and permit a
[
State inspector to accompany the NRC inspector if a State. request is
.made.
L.
l, l
Response
i Under current written procedures,' the-staff informs Non-Agreement L
States of planned NRC materials inspections. We also notify' Agreement States of some inspections of NRC licensees in their States. To. avoid inconsistency, the staff is expanding the noti-fication procedure currently applied to Non-Agreement States to include Agreement States. The issue of arranging for the Agreement State inspectors to accompany the NRC inspectors requires further study. We will advise you of any conclusions we reach regarding this matter.
l
,; i
.., 1
'l G.
Coment J
Bone Mineral Analyzer licenses issued by the NRC frequently, if not always contain a license condition that allows:use of the analyzers at health care facilities and physicians' offices anywhere NRC P
maintains jurisdiction. 'In so5e cases these licensees have therefore attempted to use these devices in Agreement States under-
. reciprocity.
I
Response
The NRC staff will review its policy regarding the licensing of bone mineral analyzers.
If warranted, we will revise the appro-priate license conditions to more accurately describe the authorized locations.of use.
It was not our intent to allow bone mineral analyzers to be used in an Agreement State under reciprocity, t
.a
.H.-
Comment The Agreement States agree in principle with the position of-the -
i CRCPD on exemptions from regulatory control and encourage the u
. NRC to continue efforts to establish a national policy.
Response
The. Commission is considering staff reconnendations for estab-L lishing a Comission Policy on exemption from regulatory control.
We will provide copies of the Federal Register notice to the States l
when the policy is published.
+
\\<
tr-w
-e an v
y-
.eg
-..c.
y--r
^$_ A
-1 I.-
Coment The-Agreement States encourage the NRC to continue to develop and use'teleconferencing as part of an overall system of training and conferencing.
J
- k
Response
Feedback'on our recent teleconference on the proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 20 has been very positive. We are greatly encourage'd by this experience and are providing a resource person to the Conference H-6 Training Committee, which is developing plans for continued use of this tool.
J.
Coment There are several courses that the NRC lists as providing the i
necessary training to qualify individuals for licensure. The
' Agreement Sates request the NRC review all of these courses to -
ensure that the courses continue to meet the training requirements for licensure.
Response
We agree that-this list needs periodic review and updating.
In F
that connection, it would be helpful if the States could expend staff resources to periodically audit courses presented within their jurisdiction. Such information would help provide a basis for assessing the adequacy of these programs.
.