ML20056D281
| ML20056D281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/26/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Synar M HOUSE OF REP., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056D285 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9308110309 | |
| Download: ML20056D281 (10) | |
Text
- - -
W
[ f nec oq
- t UNITED STATES j.'i 2!. "g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
- 'h, f
WASHINGTON. D C. 20556-0001 5
.a 9
July 26, 1993 The Honorable Mike Synar, Chairman Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to provide responses to the questions posed in the June 22, 1993 letter from your staff regarding the activities of the NRC in the regulation of Agreement States and materials licensees.
Enclosed is the mark-up key of the June 22, 1993 letter with the new numbers. We will continue to renumber new questions sequentially.
Sincerely, a es M. T or scutive irector for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated i
cc:
Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (w/ enclosures) i i
l 9308110309 930726 I
PDR STPRG ESGGEN g
PDR g
WESTION S.
The reviewer comments appended to the 1992 review of the Arizona program state that with the exception of the compatibility rule, the State's reg 0 dions are compatible.
First, the statement that the state's program is' compatible is at odds with conclusion on page 1 of the report which says compatibility is being deferred until State adopts Decommissio,,ing Rule and also at odds with August 5, 1992 letter from NRC to Arizona stating compatibility was being deferred until state has adopted decommissioning rule.
Did the 1992 review find the proc: e
.;ompatible and did the reviewer inform the state th.: " was compatible as stated in the comments? Second, what is the compatibility rule referred to in the reviewer's comments?
ANSWER.
l i
As stated in the letter and report, during the 1992 review, compatibility was i
deferred.
The reviewer did not inform the State that they were compatible as stated in his comments.
The reviewer info'/med the State that the finding of compatibility would be discussed with WC management before a decision could be made as to the acceptability of the state progress on adopting the rule.
The rule referred to was the decommissioning rule.
When closely examined, the reviewer statement referenced i, the question above is not at odds with the conclusion in the report and letter that compatibility is being deferred.
The reviewer's statement expresses that except for one
OUESTION 65.
(Continued) regulation which is a matter of compatibility, the remaining Arizona regulations are compatible with those of the NRC.
However, the statement in the reviewer's comments which may have caused some confusion is, "Because of the controversy encountered.by NRC in enforcing the rule, and because of the State's efforts to adopt the changes, compatibility was not withheld." Normally, the reviewer's comments are consistent with the review letter and are not used by the reviewers to take differing positions on the review.
This statement in the reviewer's comments was inadvertently left ir. and should have been changed.
Initially, the reviewer recommended to NRC management that a finding of compatibility should not be withheld for the Arizona program.
After the exit meeting between the reviewer and Arizona, NRC management determined, based on the information gathered during the review that Arizona had not met the stipulations in the September 14, 1990 All Agreement States letter (Enclosure 1) which addressed compatibility with regard to the decommissioning rule.
The September 14, 1990, letter provided that if the State had initiated rulemaking in a timely manner, and the rulemaking was on track, as determined in NRC's next Agreement State review, the finding of compatibility would not be withheld.
Arizona had only developed a written plan at the time of the 1992 review and rulemaking had not been initiated; thus, the State did not meet the stipulations of the finding of compatibility with regard to the decommissioning rule.
Enclosure:
As stated
- 'f-
4 OVEST10N 66.
In January 1993, NRC conducted a review of the California program.
No letter from the NRC to California transmitting the findings of that review was provided.
Please provide copies of this letter and the state's response.
ANSWER.
Enclosed is the letter acted April 22, 1993, from NRC to the State of California transmitting the findings of the 27th regulatory program review conducted on January 19-29, 1993 (Enclosure 1), and a response letter from the State of California to the NRC dated June 4, 1993 (Enclosure 2).
In addition, we have enclosed a letter dated June 22, 1993 from the State of California, regarding their plan, with milestones to complete the overdue inspections referenced in their June 4, 1993 letter (Enclosure 3).
Enclosures:
As stated
OVESTION 67.
Please provide copies of NRC reviews conducted of the California program for 1985 and 1986.
ANSWER.
In response to this question, the following documents are provided:
1.
Letter dated April 26, 1985 to Dr. Kenneth Kizer, Director, California Department of Health Services, from John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC Region V (Enclosure 1).
2.
Letter dated June 14, 1985 to John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC Region V, from Dr. Kenneth Kizer, Director, California Department of Health Services, responding to John ~ B.
Martin's April 26, 1985 letter (Enclosure 2).
3.
Letter dated July 5, 1985 to Dr. Kenneth Kizer, Director, California Department of Health Services, from John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC Region V, responding to Dr. Kizer's June 14, 1985 letter (Enclosure 3).
)
u 4.
Letter dated September 16, 1985 to Dr. Kenneth Kizer, Director, California Department of Health Services, from John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC Region V, transmitting the results of j
a follow-up review that was conducted on August 23, 1985 l
(Enclosure 4).
j 1
. OVESTION 67.
(Continued) 5.
A memorandum dated December 5, 1985 to Donald A. Nussbaumer, Assistant Director for State Agreement Programs, Office of State Programs, from Jack W. Hornor, Region V State Agreements Representative, recommending thit the next routine review be conducted in approximately six months (Enclosure 5).
6.
A copy of the 23rd routine review for the period of December 10, 1983 to February 15,1985 (Enclosure 6).
7.
A copy of the 24th routine review for the period of February 15, 1985 to March 14, 1986 (Enclosure 7).
A copy of the 25th routine review for the period March 15, 1986 to March 14, 1987 was provided to the Subcommittee in response to Question la.
Enclosures:
As stated r
~
OVEST10N 68.
Please provide copies of NRC reviews conducted of the New Hexico program for 1984, 1985 and 1986.
ANSWER.
In response to this question, enclosed is a copy of the 10th regulatory review, which covers the period November 4, 1983 to April 12, 1985 (Enclosure
- 1) and a copy of the lith regulatory program review which covers the period April 12, 1985 to September 15, 1986 (Enclosure 2). A copy of the 12th regulatory program review which covers the period September 15, 1986 to April 12, 1988 was provided to the Subcommittee in response to Question la.
Enclosures:
As stated
4 OVESTION 69.
The Summary of Assessments and Comments of the 1989 Regulatory Program Review for North Dakota refers to a July
)
8, 1988 State response to the previous program review conducted in 1987.
It also refers to a September 1,1988 NRC letter offering a finding of adequacy and compatibility based on the commitments made by North Dakota in the July 8, 1988 letter.
Neither letter was provided to the Subcommittee.
Please provide both 1988 letters.
ANSWER.
Enclosed is a copy of the letter dated July 8,1988 from the State of North Dakota to NRC responding to the comments and recommendations from the 1987 review of the North Dakota radiation control program (Enclosure 1). Also enclosed is a copy of the September 1,1988 letter from the NRC to the State
)
of North Dakota (Enclosure 2).
Enclosures:
As stated
OVEST10N 70.
In a January 28, 1992 letter from T. Frazee, Supervisor, Radiaoactive Materials Section, State of Washington Department of Health to V. Miller, NRC State Agreements Program states that the State intends to drop QM program pending outcome of ACNP/SNH lawsuit, drop I-123 from misadministration reporting.
Subsequently, on March 3, 1992, V. Miller informs the Director of the Washington program that the proposed regulations were compatible and on April 9, 1992, C. Kammerer wrote to Washington informing the State that its regulatory program was compatible.
Did Washington State include the QM rule and 1-123 prior to final adoption or did NRC determine that the Washington regulations were compatible despite these variations.
ANSWER.
Please note that there were no variations between the Washington regulations and the NRC regulations when the review report was issued in April 1992.
In letter dated March 3,1993, Enclosure 1, from T. R. Strong, Director, Washington Division of Radiation Protection, to Carlton Kammerer, Director, State Programs, it indicates that the regulations had been reviewed by NRC and all our comments had been incorporated.
As noted in the letter, these regulations were adopted by the Department on March 23. 1992. However, please note only the misadministration reporting requirements were adopted as part of the Washington rules. The State must adopt the remaining quality management portion of the rule by the January 1995 Agreement States adoption date.
If
OVESTION 70.
(Continued) all the rule is not adopted at that time, then compatibility will be withheld with regard to this regulation.
With regard to the deletion of I-123 from the misadministration reporting, this radionuclide is not covered under the Atomic Energy Act because it is not byproduct material.
Thus, it is not under NRC's jurisdiction and would not be covered by NRC's current requirements for misadministration reporting.
Enclosure:
As stated l
1 i