ML20044F885
| ML20044F885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/21/1993 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Skeels M OREGON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306010159 | |
| Download: ML20044F885 (9) | |
Text
.
y-50 "*2 p
- o UNITED STATES o["g^j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
wissincrow. o. c.rosss 8
%., ' e
,e May 21, 1993 Michael R.
Skeels, Ph.D., MPH Administrator, Health Division Assistant Director, Department of Human Services 1400 Southwest Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97201
Dear Dr. Skeels:
This letter confirms the discussion Jack Hornor held with you and your staff on April 2, 1993, following our review of the State's radiation control program.
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the State, we believe that the State's program for regulating agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the regulatory programs of the NRC.
We were pleased to find that the Oregon regulations were updated within the three-year time frame specified in the guidelines.
Adopting compatibility regulations within this period ensures uniformity among regulatory agencies and improves the effectiveness of the regulatory process.
The guidelines for Legal Assistance state that legal staff should be assigned to assist the radioactive materials program or that procedures should exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously.
Current Oregon policy requires the program to pay the costs of legal assistance out of operating funds.
In our opinion, this does not meet the intent of the guidelines and discourages the use of appropriate legal assistance, an indispensable tool in the regulatory process.
Oregon has a number of complex licenses which frequently require regulatory decisions that would benefit from legal expertise.
We strongly recommend legal assistance be provided to the radioactive materials program without reducing funds available for licensing and inspection.
We congratulate you and your staff for the overall quality of the radiation control program.
In particular, we found many improvements in the licensing and termination actions. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. is a summary of the review findings which were discussed with Mr. Paris.
We request specific responses from the State on the comments in Enclosure 2.
9306010159 930521 I
PDR STPRG ESGOR n
p y
<t
M O y, rI gEg H
W N
o a
t'$g$4$$ T Qgo W
n e
DQr$dc#
a M 4 Oo 37 [E E ",$ #
m 0
4
?!g
"%M ggw 4
e O
og w
US po Q@ d o
O b
M p <+ 7 y
9 Mg d
ov g0%"gU"rE s
g%
oM O
O g
6C h
oE ai a
=g>4
=
n 7
Q a
dh o
o#
b E g $r$. 1 s
sd E y $E5x*%
W
- 81 ag E*
[y $ $ 3 M + N 3
M3 O
N W
W"@
O 4 Xm 5
O D*O$pa?<a a,u.
Mm~~
O
/
au
/
e nd W
n.
agO
$"U e
w o
/
.r gn 0
4 Mpp
\\
M
/
M S ygpg
/
ge x"-
7$
g
/
g a, p e
r OM g
M d E x?e O h~
N 0
O m
O>6
- g n
W x 4"3 $g
/
M et O
/
4 4
O o0 MH M
e g$
E' 5
i 8gx o
rd O
O O 4
<h d
P M
M O
- A m
/
n $g o
U M
g M
/
p O
W M
O g
p O
g.
/
M M mBOG 3o i
g0
/
m~
M O O3 g
/
O Q2
$s$* o Or OU 0
5
/
O 56 d
~
p m O" M
x M
/
/
/
/
l
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
N
IN i
Michael R. Skeels 2
UkY 2 1 1993 In accordance with NRC practice, I am also enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended the NRC staff during the review.
I am looking forward to your comments regarding legal assistance and your staff responses to the
- recommendations.
Sincer ly, aayeri.r,Directorf4 W ife d
Carlton K Office of' State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated e
^
cc w/encls:
Ray Paris, Manager, Oregon Radiation Control Section J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC Bobby Faulkenberry, Acting Regional i
Administrator, NRC Region V State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room
'l i
i l
I
Michnol R.
Skcolo 2
2 I 1933 9
In cccordnnca with NRC practico, I cm alco enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended the NRC staff during the review.
I am looking forward to your comments regarding legal assistance and your staff responses to the recommendations.
Sincerely, original cigaod by Verdy L W4r Carlton Kammerer, Director
-)OfficeofStatePrograms
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls:
Ray Paris, Manager, Oregon Radiation Control Section J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC Bobby Faulkenberry, Acting Regional Administrator, NRC Region V State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room bec w/encls:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Plangue 9
Distribution:
SA RF VMiller CMaupin DKunihiro DIR RF SSchwartz JHornor EDO RF RBernero DCD '(SP01)
CKammerer SDroggitis California File OFClRV:SAO
- DRS^lRV:RA OSP:
OSP: A
.d p*
- n -+.AD
...... +
d, =
i NME !JHor l RS ar rAO BFa ken l CID'.AUPIN l VMi{g... +....
Terl
...... d
) d?._
$ y rry,,,,_4, M /93[6[5[U !
4,,,
_4,,,,
DTEl4/8//
$4/c9l/
!4/N/93
!4
/93!
_ FOS [:D DEDS_jf EdO[_
. 0,F,C,
,0,SP:DD NMSS:D
__ f dKa f HL JOIE SS rtz RBernero son ylor rer DTE!
/93
! 05/// /93 l05/\\b93 l07fl3/93
!0
) h93 g:931etter.or 4
Application of CGuidelines for NRC Review of Acreement State Radiation Control Procrams" s
The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," were published in the Federal Recister on May 28, 1992, as an NRC Policy Statement.
The Guidelines provide 30 indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas.
Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If significant problems exist in several Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
Category II indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.
Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program
- areas, i.e.,
those that fall under Category I indicators.
Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category I indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following manner.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each comment made.
If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate 4
that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant Category.I comments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period.
The Commission will be informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a
staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Act, as amended.
ENCLOSURE 1 4
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS FOR THE OREGON RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM MARCH 8, 1991, TO APRIL 2, 1993 SCOPE OF REVIEW This program review was conducted in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs published in the Federal Register on May 28, 1992, and the internal procedures established by the Office of State Programs, Agreement States Program.
The State's program was reviewed against the 30 program indicators provided in the Guidelines.
The review included inspector accompaniments, discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license and compliance files, and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
The 28th regulatory program review meeting with Oregon representatives was held during the period March 22 through April 2, 1993, in Portland.
The State was represented by Ray Paris, Manager, Radiation Control Section.
Selected license and compliance files were reviewed by Jack Hornor, Regional State Agreements Officer, Region V.
One irspector was accompanied during a field inspection on March 23, 1993.
Mr. Hornor, accompanied by Martha Dibblee, Supervisor, Materials Licensing and Compliance, visited two State licensees, Precision Castparts Corporation on March 26, 1993 and the University of Oregon on March 30, 1993.
A summary meeting regarding the results of the review was held with Dr. Michael R. Skeels, Administrator, Health Division, on April 2, 1993.
t CONCLUSION The program for control of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the regulatory programs of the NRC and Agreement States.
STATUS OF PROGRAM RELATED TO PREVIOUS NRC FINDINGS The results of the previous review were reported to the State in a letter to Dr. Skeels dated May 1, 1991.
All comments made at that time were satisfactorily resolved and closed out during the March 1992 Review Visit.
ENCLOSURE 2
i 2
CURRENT REVIEW COMMDiTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS All 30 program indicators were reviewed and the State fully r
satisfies 27 of these indicators.
In addition, a minor comment on the status of regulations is also provided.
Specific comments and recommendations are as follows:
1.
Status and ConDatibility of Reculations is a Cateoorv I Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Guideline Statement For those regulations deemed a me.tter of compatibility by the NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable, but no later than three years.
Comment The State's regulations are compatible with the NRC regulations up to the 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments on " Financial Assurance and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning" that became effective on July 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018).
The next regulation change will be in late 1993, at which time the State is planning to adopt the following regulations.
" Emergency Planning," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments that became effective on April 7, 1990 (54 FR 14061) and should be adopted by the States by April 7, 1993.
" Standards for Protection Against Radiation," 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (56 FR 61352) that was adopted on June 20, 1991, and will be implemented on January 1, 1994.
" Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment," 10 CFR Part 34 amendment (55 FR 843) that became effective on January 10, 1991 and should be adopted by the States by January 10, 1994.
" Notification of Incidents," 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, and 70 amendments (56 FR 40757) that became effective on October 15, 1991 and should be adopted by the States by October 14, 1994.
" Quality Management Program and Misadministrations,"
10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56 FR 34104) that became effective on January 27, 1992.
Effective date for the States is January 27, 1995.
The emergency planning rule which was to be adopted by the States by April 7, 1993 is currently being enforced through license condition.
3 Recommendation The State should notify the Region V Regional State Agreement Officer when the current package of rules become effective.
2.
Administrative Procedures is a Catecorv II Indicator.
Guideline Statement The RCP should establish written internal policy and administrative procedures to assure that program functions are carried out as required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices.
These procedures should address internal processing of license applications, inspection policies, decommissioning and license termination, fee collection, contacts with communication media, conflict of interest policies for employees, exchange-of-information and other functions required of the program.
Comments A.
Oregon uses the administrative procedures developed by the CRCPD committee as guidance.
However, the generic procedures have not modified to fit Oregon's needs; they have not been approved by management; and they are not followed uniformly by all staff.
Deficiencies found in the inspection reports, in particular, emphasize the need for uniform adherence to written
)
procedures.
j B.
The State does not have adequate procedurcs in place to assure proper recording and tracking of essential program functions such as incident reparting and escalated enforcement, 1.
Although the State responded appropriately to all incidents, we found two incidents neeting NPC reporting requirements were not reported, not entered into the tracking system nor included in the annual summary.
In addition, two leaking sources were not reported to the NRC at the time the State was notified.
2.
The State's administrative procedures include an inspection policy that assigns points to various levels of severity of items of non-compliance, with escalated enforcement required at a specific point level.
The results of the inspections are entered into a computer system designed to track i
the need for escalated enforcement.
However, in a representative sample of eleven compliance files, four cases were found in which errors made on the inspeption form or during data entry failed to 1
trigger the escalated enforcement.
i
r 4
C.
Written procedures have not been revised to meet current regulatory requirements.
For example, the a
medical license application and inspection forms do not reflect recent changes in medical regulations.
Recommendationsi (1)
We recommend the State adapt the generic procedures to their own needs and, after management approval, require all staff to uniformly follow the procedures.
(2)
The State should revise their tracking system to provide verification that all items are entered properly.
(3)
The license application guides and inspection forms should be revised to reflect current regulations.
3.
Inspection Reports is a Catecorv II Indicator.
Guideline Statement Reports should uniformly and adequately document the result of inspections including confirmatory measurements, status of previous noncompliance and identify areas of the licensee's program which should receive special attention at the next inspection.
Reports should show the status of previous noncompliance and the results of confirmatory measurements made by the inspector.
Corrent Although the State's inspection policies and procedures meet the guidelines, the results of the inspections are not adequately documented in the reports.
In the representative sampling of eleven inspection reports, seven contained errors or omissions.
In foor cases, the inspection forms were not fully completed, and in one case an inspector said he conducted a follow-up inspection but did not document it.
Other significant findings included:
(1) dosimetry records entered without specifying units (six cases),
(2) no reference to inspecting licensee's ALARA commitments (six cases),
(3) no documentation that previous items of non-compliance were closed cc (four cases), and (4) no indication of interviews with ancillary workers.
Recommendation We recommend that all inspection reports be carefully reviewed by the supervisor to ensure the existing policies and procedures are being followed.
I
5 4.
Enforcement Procedures is a Catecorv I Indicator.
g GuidelineState$ent i
Licensee responses to enforcement letters should be promptly acknowledged as to adequacy and resolution of previously unresolved items.
Comment The standard language used in the State's acknowledgement letter to licensee's responses does not indicate whether or not the licensee's corrective actions are satisfactory.
Recommendation We recommend the standard acknowledgement letter be reworded to advise the licensee of the adequacy of his corrective actions.
SUMMARY
OF DISCUSSION WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVES
+
A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review was held with Dr. Skeels on April 2, 1993.
The meeting was also attended by Thomas Johnson, Head of the Office of Environmental and Health Systems, and Mr. Paris.
The State was commended on adopting the compatible regulations within the three-year time frame.
They were also congratulated on improvements in the licensing program.
During our summary of the findings, the need to provide appropriate legal assistance to the program without jeopardizing funds need2d for other regulatory functions was emphasized.
Dr.
Skeels listened te the recommendations made by the NRC and promised to consider changing the method of allocating legal coste.
The State, and Mr. Paris in particular, thanked the NRC for bringing these issues to their attention and for the assistance provided by State Programs.
They assured the NRC representative that the technical problems will be corrected promptly.
l i
.