ML20058C776
| ML20058C776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/25/1990 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Gebbie K WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011050081 | |
| Download: ML20058C776 (13) | |
Text
_
l
+*
'og UNITED STATES l
[.
g, NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION x'.
- l 5
WASmNGTON, D. C. MLS
~
October 25, 1990 Ms. Kristine M. Gebbie, Secretary Department of Health 1112 South Quince Street Olympia, WA 98504
Dear Ms. Gebbie:
This letter confirms the discussion Jack Hornor, Richard Woodruff and Jones Kennedy held with you and your staff on August 24, 1990, 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 infonnation between the NRC and the State, we believe that, overall, the State's pro) ram for regulating agreement materials is adequate to protect the public 1ealth and safety. However a statement of compatibility will bepostponeduntiltheWashingtonregulationsareamendedtobecompatible with those of the NRC and Agreement States.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I Indicator.
For l
those regulations deemed a r.-*'er of compatibility by NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practical.e but no later than three years.
Washington has not revised their regulations since 1987; as a result the State i
is not compatible with the NRC in the requirements for surveys and audits by industrial radiographers, licensee bankruptcy notification and the reporting l
of medical misadministrations.
l We understand from our discussion that it will take at least nine months to revise and publish these regulations. We recommend management give the highest priority to expediting changes in these regulations and two others L
that will be due in the interim, certification of dosimetry processors and decomm!ssioning. We also recommend the State initiate rulemaking procedures to assure future NRC rules will be adopted in time to maintain compatibility.
We would also like to bring to your attention the number of findings in the Radioactive Materials Program including the comments repeated from previous L
reviews. Of the six comments we made following our last review, three have l-not been resolved, including Quality of Emergency Planning, a Category'I indicator repeated a second time. While none of these findings is significant enough to wit D id adequacy at this time, we are concerned that if not satisfactorily addressed, these findings will ultimately affect the adequacy of the Washington program. The findings suggest that program management may not be devoting sufficient attention to the task of regulating agreement materials. We discussed this same problem with Mr. Rolfs following our last i
review.
l Because of the number of findings we plan to conduct a follow-up review of L
the radioactive materials program in approximately 12 months. At that time a new determination of adequacy and compatibility will be made, i
9 v
m 9011050001 901025 F
g STPROESGyDR, PDR 1
E 007 2 5 1990 Eristine M. Gebbie 2
We do congratulate yoi and your staff on the improvements we found in the Waste Managenent Program and on your proposal to supplement the radioactive materials budget with moneys from the general fund.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is enclosed as Enclosure 1. contains our summary of assessments regarding the program. They were discussed at our exit meeting with you. As indicated during our exit meeting, we request a response from the State on the comments in Enclosure 2.
In accordance with NRC practice, I am also enclosing a second copy of this letter for placenent 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.
Sincerely, original signed by Carlton Kammeret Carlton Kammerer Director State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Terry R. Strong, Director, Washington Division of Radiation Protection J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC Region Y State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room
' Distribution Ete attached-r RV SP/D GP k
jJ ornor RScarano JMartin liller CKamarer S 0/[lch{/90 artz HD on 10/5/90 10/,f /90 -
10/5 /90 10/5'/90 10/ /90 1
10
/90 7/
90 7
i l
l
.s 4
Kristine M. Gebbie i
bec: Chairman Carr Comissioner Rogers Comissioner Curtiss Comissioner Remick Distribution 5A RF Dir RF EDO RF HP.Denton CKammerer VMiller FCombs JLubenau SDroggitis JHornor RScarano JMartin Washington File DCD(SP01) l 8
f
l APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 3" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 29 inoicators 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 i
problems exist in one or more 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 11 indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing or contributing to difficulties in Category I l
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 coment made.
If no significant Category I comments are-provided, this will indicate 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 for 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 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 Comission will I
i be informed 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 l
.NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
L ENCL.0SURE 1 C
i
,n=
,,.-,,-.my.--_-..
.m-.-e-mv.._
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS FOR THE WASHINGTON RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM OCTOBER 29, 1988, TO AUGUST 24, 1990 l
SCOPE OF REVIEW This program review was conducted in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statenent for reviewing Agreement State Programs published in the Federal i
Retf ter on June 4,1987, and the internal procedures established by the FTcTof Governmental and Public Aff airs, Agreement States Program. The State's program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided in tht Guidelines. The review included inspector accompaniments, discussions with prooram management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license 1
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 22nd regulatory program review meeting with Washington representatives j
was held during the period August 13-24, 1990 in Olympia. The :itete was represented by Terry R. Strong, Director, Division of Radiation Prot 6ction, Terry Frazee, Program Manager, Radioactive Materials, and Gary Rotertsm, Program Manager, Waste Management. A review of selected license and compliance files was conducted by Jack W. Hornor, Regional State Agreements l
Officer, Region V, assisted by Richard Woodruff and Beth Riedlinger.
Dennis Sollenberger assisted with the review of the uranium mill and low-level waste program, and James Kennedy and Mark Thaggard assisted with the review of the low-level waste program.
Field accompaniments of two inspectors were made by Mr. Woodruff on August 21 and 22.
The staff visited the uranium mill facilities of Dawn Mining Company, Western Nuclear and the closed Joy site on August 13 and 14,1990, accompanied by Leo Wainhouse of the Washington Waste Management Program. The visits included the Midnight Mine and the Roosevelt Mine.
l The summary meeting regarding the results of the review was held with Kristine Gebbie, Secretary, Department of Health, on August 24, 1990.
CONCLUSION The State's program for controlling agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety, but a finding of compatibility was withheld pending the State's revision of their regulations.
STATUS OF PROGRAM RELATED TO PREVIOUS NRC FINDINGS The results of the previous review were reported to the State in a letter to Robert-Rolfs dated November 25, 1988. All items pertaining to the Waste Management Program were satisfactorily closed out; however, there were three p
L repeat findings in the Radioactive Materials Program:
ENCLOSURE 2 1
1 l
2 1.
Quality of Emergency Planning (Category I) p_ revious Coment:
During the past two reviews the staff had found the L
State' emergency plan did not adequately address RCP office intert tions for incidents other than those occurring at fixed nuclear facil ies.
In response to our recomendations, the State had agreed to revit their plan by September 1989.
Current Status: The new plan was finally distributed in July 1990, but wH hout management or technical review. The plan contained significant technical errors involving incorrect units ar.d incomplete procedures for transportation accidents. These and other problems are addressed below.
2.
Laboratory Su gog (Category II)
Previous Comment: During the last review the staff found that inspectors were not taking swipes for the detection of low energy beta emitters during compliance inspections because of disagreements between the Office of Radiation protection (ORP) and the Environmental Radiation Laboratory (ERL) over costs and turn-around time.
Current Status: The use of the lab is not consistent, and some inspectors are still not taking tritium wipes. Although the program managers feel the problem with the lab has been resolved, apparently there has not been adequate supervisory follow up to ensure all inspectors are taking the required wipes.
3.
Inspection Procedures (Category II)
Previous Comment:
It was noted inspectors were not always holding exit interviews with management, although there were significant or multiple items of noncompliance.
In our letter we stressed the importance of exit interviews and recommended they be conducted at the upper management level during all inspections.
Current Status: We found that in at least four cases the exit meeting E s not held with management, although two of these cases involved repeated items of non-compliance.
CURRENT REVIEW r%iMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS All 29 program indicat(rs were reviewed and the State fully satisfies 22 of these indicators Specific comments and recoseendations for the remaining 7 indicators are as fellows:
~
3 LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS 1.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I indicator. The following coment and recommendation is made:
Coment Pursuant to the guidelines, for those regulations deemed matters of compatibility by the NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but not later than three years. The following 10 CFR amendments are matters of compatibility that have not been adopted by Washington.
j'a rt Due Su_ mary 34 7/89 IR storage surveys and quarterly audits 30,40,61,70 2/90 Bankruptcy notification 35 4/90 Medical misadministration reporting We understand from our discussion that it will take at least nine months for the promulgation of these revised regulations.
In the interim, two more amendments will become due, certification of dosimetry processors and decomissioning.
Recommendation We recommend program management place a higher priority on revising t
l their regulations to maintain compatibility.
l MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 1
L 2.
Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category I Indicator.
y l
Coment The State RCP should have a written plan for response to such incidents as spills, overexposures, transportation accidents, fire or explosion, theft, etc. The plan should be reviewed annually by Program staff for adequacy and to determine that content is current.
A new plan. dated July 1990,-was written and distributed apparently-without management or technical review.
The plan was poorly written with incorrect or incomplete procedures, and it contained serious technical errors such as substituting millicurie values for curies.
Also, interviews with possible responders indicated confusion and lack of understanding of appropriate health physics practices. The program has, however, responded appropriately to 6ctual incidents, and therefore, this finding is not considered to be of major concern at this time. Although the following conment is not significant enough to withhold adequacy, it is the second repeat finding in this indicator.
4 Recommendation We recorrend the plan be immediately withdrawn, and rewritten with the advice of technical staff and reviewed b.y management prior to distribution. We also recomnend traini.ig sessions for all possible responders, including personnel from other programs.
3.
Laboratory Support is a Category II indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
.i Comment The RCP should have the laboratory support readily available to analyze samples collected by inspectors.
The Environmental Radiation Laboratory used by the RCP is another division of the Department of Health and is located in Seattle.
Past misunderstandings regarding fees and turn around times appear to have been resolved; however, in our discussions with the staff we found that not all inspectors are using the lab for tritium wipes.
. Recommendation We suggest program management review all inspections involving licensees using unsealed tritium and make sure all inspectors are making the H-3 wipes and having them analyzed.
LICENSING 4.
Licensing Procedures are a Category II indicator. The following comnent with our recomendation is made.
_ Comment The RCP should have internal licensing guides, license conditions and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice. The State has not adopted the NRC moly breakthrough criteria of 0.15 microcuries of Mo-99 per millicurie of Tc-99m which became effective in April 1987.
Recommendation We recommend the State adopt the new criteria and amend the applicable medical and pharmacy licenses.
't 5
COMPLIANCE 5.
Enforcement Procedures are a Category I indicator. The following coment addresses a problem which is not of major significance now, but which may become so in the future.
$8!!!!'f!Lt Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulatory requirements.
In some cases reviewed, it appeared escalated enforcement actions were indicated because of numerous or repeated items of noncompliance.
" Field Form" notices similar to the NRC form 591 are currently being used for deficiencies and infractions, and are issued at the time of l
inspection without supervisory or peer review.
Recommendation We recomend the enforcement procedures be revised with a view towards making the use of the Field Form notices similar to the NRC's use of L
their 591 Form, in that it be used only for severity level 4 or 5 type l
violations. More serious, numerous, or repeated violations should l
require a formal letter to the licensee's management with further l.
escalation, such as management conferences, to be determined after supervisory review and input.
6.
Inspection Procedures are a Category II indicator. The following coment with our recomendation is made.
Coment l
Written policy should exist, assuring exit interviews be held with management.
In four cases reviewed, the exit interviews were held with other individuals rr.cher than with management.
In two of these cases, the exits'were with RS0s although there were-repeated items of non-
. compliance and ei;en cause for escalated enforcement.
Recommendation l
l We recommend more management attention be devoted to assuring the exit meetings be held with the proper level of management and to verifying that all elements of the inspection meet the guidelines.
I
-m,v,--e>v.,
. -,e-.
,,,,,.a.-
, r,
. - - - ~. - * - -
---,-,-.-e
6 7.
Ins >ection Reports are a Category 11 indicator. The following comment wit) our recommendation is made.
Comment Findings of inspections should be documented in a report describing the scope of inspections and indicating the substance of discussions with licensee's management and licensee s response.
a.
The reports do not specifically document what was discussed at the exit meeting and the licensee's response; b.
More information is needed in the reports regarding the extent of the records review or the sampling procedures utilized.
Recommendation We recommend tha inspection forms be revised to emphasize these items and management review the inspection reports to assure the reports are complete.
LOW-LEVEL 6!ASTE PROGRAM 8.
Licensing a.
Compent US Ecology recently submitted an application to WDOH to renew the license for the Hanford site. The application currently consists of a revised Standards Manual. The operating procedures implementing the manual will be submitted for review later, before the license is renewed. The bases upon which the license will be renewed does not appear.to be well defined.
Recommendation We recommend the bases for renewing the license be documented in a safety evaluation report or similar written record of the license review and approval process. Areas to be addressed should include the criterid in WAC 401-61-120(S) for changes in the license made as a result of'past operating experience, reference to previous evaluations of license applications and other information which supports the decision to renew the license.
7 b.
Comnent The cover letter of the license renewal application submitted by US-Ecology stated they had identified all changes to the currently approved Facility Standards Manual. WDOH staff indicated that during their review of this submittal,.they found numerous changes that were not identified by US Ecology.
Recommendation We recommend WD0H request US Ecology to implement a more effective document change control system, and in the future, consider returning to US Ecology for correction any documents which have not been appropriately controlled.
10.- Compliance Comment WDOH has written procedures-for on-site inspections of US Ecology operations. No non-compliance items have been identified, however, in more than a-year, and there is no record of how much US Ecology work has been inspected.
Reconnendation We recommend a plan and/or record of what has been reviewed in the l>
inspection arogram be developed. WDOH provided checklists they intend 1
to use on tie annual team inspection at'the site, and indicated they.
i also plan to use.this checklist as the basis for routine inspections throughout the year. The staff agrees with this approach and will
-review its-implementation in future reviews.
11..
Disposal Procedures a.
Cwment The State's procedures and review checklist for handling unusual or non-conforming burial requests appear to be working well but are still in draft form.
s
4 8
1 Recommendation
. We recomend the State finalize these documents, b.
Coment Whenever WDOH suspects that a waste is mixed waste, they request (in writing)adeclarationfromtheWashingtonDepartmentofEcology(WDOE) on whether or not the haste should be classified.as mixed waste.- If WDOE determines the waste is mixed, the generator is not allowed to dispose of the waste on the site. Currently WDOH has three requests awaiting a WDOE declaration, one since May. ' WDOH is also awaiting a response from WDOE on whether or not lead shielding already buried at the site should be considered mixed waste.
Recomendation We recomend WDOH do more to follow up on requests to WDOE.
c.
Coment l
In reviewing US Ecology's pathway analysis,.the State did not perform 1-any analyses of their own to verify the validity of the analysis submitted by US Ecology. The State expressed a concern primarily with the estimated infiltration rate used by US Ecology in their analysis.
Although the infiltration rate is an important component of a pathway analysis, other aspects of'the analysis should have also been reviewed, such as the parameters and data used in the analysis, the level of conservatism, and the assumptions made.
Recommendation
. We recommend the. State independently analyze US Ecology's pathway analysis when.it is resubmitted, using outside consultants, i' necessary, to provide technical assistance.
d.
Coment The Waste Management Section currently relies on the Environmental Protection Section to review and analyze environmental monitoring data and reports..In the past, requests from Waste Management have not received a.high priority by Environmental Protection, creating a delay in-the review of some data and reports.
=
~
i j
l 9
Recommendation-j 1
Although Waste Management expects an improved working relationship with Environmental Protection, we recommend a' protocol be established for the timely review of environmental data and reports. We suggested a memorandum of understanding be developed between the two sections, stating the items to be reviewed by Environmental Protection and the necessary response time. Further, for non-regular requests, Waste Management should specify the date the response is needed; this has not always been done in the past. Alternatively, Environmental-Protection Section staff could be transferred to the Waste Man 3gement Section.
e.
Comment The State currently allows US Ecology until the end of June to submit their annual environmental report. By allowing US Ecology six months to submit their report, and adding the three months required by State staff j
to review the report, nearly a year elapses between the time the data is i
gathered and the review is completed. This reduces-the opportunity for resampling if needed, and delays any required remedial efforts.
Recommendation We recommend the State reduce the timeframe allowed US Ecology for l
submitting their report.
SUMMARY
. DISCUSSION WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVES A summary meeting to 3 resent the results of the regulatory program review
~
l was held with Ms. Geb)ie on August 24, 1990. -The NRC representatives at the meeting were J. Hornor, R. Woodruff and J. Kennedy. Also attending the meeting were Eric Slagle, Assistet Secretary, Department of Health and Mr. Strong.
l The State was advised of the withholding of compatibility and the need to have compatible regulations with NRC and _other Agreement States.
Repeat findings in other indicators and the apparent need for more management attention to the radioactive materials section were also discussed.
'The State was comended for the improvements found _in the waste management section and for their efforts to find more funding sources for both regulatory programs.
Ms. Gebbie explained the Department of Health is a new department and managerial time is being used elsewhere; however, she felt they could devote the necessary time and effort to regain compatibility and maintain adequacy during the next review period.
.