ML20148L138
| ML20148L138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/08/1978 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Funderburg R IDAHO, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148L131 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811200135 | |
| Download: ML20148L138 (2) | |
Text
j#
b,'4 "4
t UNITED STATES O'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY cOMMisslON j
j j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%(fr,'g% /
=
e
)
NOV 8 1978 Mr. Robert Funderburg, Supervisor Radiation Control Section Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Statehouse Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Mr. runderburg:
This is to confirm the comments made to you regarding the recent regula-tory program review held by John McGrath.
Based on the results of the review, the staff believes that the State's program for control of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the Commission's program.
As noted during our previous review, the State is not actively pursuing all of the requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 19 during inspections.
On August 27, 1976, the State sent a memo to all Idaho licensees trans-mitting a copy of 10 CFR Part 19 and informing them of the State's administrative adoption of this rule. We suggest that this letter be reissued to all Idaho licensees. This will serve to remind those who have already received it, and inform those who have not, that the State intends to enforce the requirements of 10 CFR Part 19. State inspectors shou'id then proceed to fully implement Part 19 into their inspection plans.
We were pleased to note some improvement in the licensing program. The i
only generic deficiency noted during the review was a lack of sufficient information submitted by applicants in the area of transportation.
Licenses issued to Treatment Equipment Enterprises, Inc., and Measure-ments. Inc., were discussed in some detail with you and your staff and specific recommendations were made.
Please keep us informed of-the actions you take with regard to these licensees.
With regard to ti e' State's compliance program, we have the following l
l specific recommendations:
1.
Enforcement actions are not always pursued in an appropriate manner. Several cases were again noted where items of non-compliance were addressed as recommendations in enforcement 7811200 0 T G
. Mr. Robert Funde'rburg letters.
In addition, the State has not been requiring.
' licensees to address these recommendations in their responses to. enforcement letters.
It is again recommended that the. State cite all: appropriate items of noncompliance and require licensees to respond to recommendations as
.well as items of noncompliance.
2.
At the time of the meeting, it was reported that.16 licenses were overdue for inspection, 4 of these:being category I licenses. We suggest these licenses be-
.t inspected as soon as practicable.
i 3.
The State' investigated two. gauge incidents during this past year.. Reports on-inspections conducted as a result of these incidents did-not have sufficient information to indicate that a complete investigation was made and that the incident was. closed out. We suggest that additional documentation of details such as corrective actions be included in such' reports.
4.
Although inspection reports have improved over the previous review, we recommend that the following items be more completely documented in inspection reports:
a.
status of previous items of noncompliance; b.
management summary meeting, particularly management responses; 11censees'. survey programs and details of inspector's c.
surveys; and d.
licensee compliance with Part.19..
We would appreciate your review of the above. recommendations and would like-to receive your comments on them.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to Mr. McGrath during his meeting with you and
.your staff.
Sincerely, WGd.l
/
G. Wayne'1(err, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program Office of State Programs 1
cc:
M. Klein.
L. Stokes H. Burkhardt g.z&msJ m-y
..