ML20151M615
| ML20151M615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/26/1985 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Griepentrog J NEVADA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601020633 | |
| Download: ML20151M615 (6) | |
Text
o starg)g e
UNITED STATE 3 8
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- j REGION V
%g.....,o#
4 1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 210 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFoRNI A 94596 2 6 DEC 25 Mr. Jerry Griepentrog, Director Department of Human Resources 505 King Street, Room 600 Carson City, Nevada 89710
Dear Mr. Griepentrog:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack Hornor, Region V State Agreements Representative held with you and your staff on November 22, 1985 following our review and evaluation of the State radiation control program. The review covered the principal administrative and technical aspects of the program; This included an examination of the program's legislation and regulations, organization, management and administration, personnel, licensing and compliance.
Our review used as a reference, the NRC " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," published in the Federal Register on December 4,1981 as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guidelines contain 30 Indicators for program evaluation. A description of how the indicators are used in reporting the results of the program review to State management is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Nevada, the staf f believes that the Nevada program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program.
Enclosed with this letter are specific comments regarding the technical aspects of the program (Enclosure 2). You may wish to have Mr. John Vaden, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section, address these comments.
I would appreciate your review of our recommendations and receiving your specific plans, including projected milestones and completion dates, to improve the agreement materials program.
I am also enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
OjTPRGESGNVo633 851226 PDR 5FoI I
i
8 OEC 1333 Mr. Jerry Criepentrog I appreciated the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Hornor.
Sincerely,
- s. JA 0 f,p on'.
artin Regional Administrato
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. John Vaden, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section State of Nevada Public Document Room
[NRC Public DocumentlRoomi(Code SP01)
'Mr.' G.~ Wayne Kerr, Director, OSP
_=-
k 4
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," were published in the Federal Register on December 4, 1981 as an NRC Policy Statement < The Guide provides 30 Indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas.
Guidance as their relative importance to an Agreement' State program is provided by categorizing the Indicators into 2 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 hich 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 fndicators.
It is the NRC's intention to ush 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 that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
If at least one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affedt the. State's ability to protect the public health and ' safety and should be uddressed on a priority basis.
When more than one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would request an inmediate response, and may perform a follow-up review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if
/-
additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement.
Category f II comments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ab,ility to protect the public.
The State will be asked to respond to' these conments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
r 3
k
l.
?
,y ENCLOSURE 2 3
Comments and Recommendations on the Technical Aspects of the Nevada Radiation Control Program for Agreement Materials I.
Management and Administration A.
Administrative Procedures Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comments and recommendations are made:
1.
Comment y
The RCP should establish written internal procedures to assure that the staff performs its duties as required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices.
Nevada has no written procedures covering the internal processing of license applications, inspection and enforcement policies and procedures, decommissioning, instrument calibration and low-level waste site inspections.
The need for these written procedures was evidenced by a lack of uniformity or completeness in various program areas, and is a repeat finding from previous reviews.
Recommendation We recommend that the State develop written internal procedures for the program functions specified above.
First drafts of some of these procedures were written by the Nevada staff during the week of the review. The program could use these drafts as a basis for developing the final written procedures j
as suggested in the guidelines.
i l
l 2.
Comment The State does not have written administrative procedures for s
termination of licenses and requirements for the final closeout inspection. These procedures should provide for verification lr that all radioactive material has either been transferred to a i
/
licensee with authorization to possess the radioactive material or that the material has been properly shipped as radioactive waste and provide for closecut surveys when appropriate.
In l
cases where transfers have been made to out-of-State recipients t
and there is inadequate documentation available that the recipients were properly authorized to possess the material, r
the State should notify the Agency having jurisdiction over the transfer and determine if the transfer was proper. The State of Nevada, in two instances, relied only on the word of the licensee without written verification or notification that recipients of radioactive material transfers were properly licensed.
3
Recommendation We recommend that the State develop and implement written procedures for license termination and closecut which include verification of disposition of radioactive material and notification of appropriate regulatory authority. Conversely, the State of Nevada should furnish this infonnation to other regulatory agencies when requested.
II. Licensing A.
Licensing Procedures Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment and recommendation is made:
Coment License applicants (including applicants for renewals) should be furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions. The State of Nevada does not furnish guides and regulatory positions to applicants unless asked.
Recomendation We recommend Nevada furnish all applicants, including renewal applicants, with copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions as suggested by the guidelines. The NRC can furnish an initial set of guides for copying, if requested, until your program can generate its own.
III. Compliance A.
Inspector's Performance and Capability Inspector's Performance and Capability is a Category I Indicator.
The following minor comment and recomendation is made:
Comment Thecompliancesupervisor(RCPsupervisor)shouldconductfield evaluations of junior inspectors to verify their capability prior to assigning them independent inspections of radioactive material licensees. These accompaniments are to assure application of appropriate and consistent policies and guides. A junior inspector was assigned at least three solo RAM inspections prior to his official field evaluation.
Recommendation We recommend that the RCP supervisor conduct the appropriate field evaluation of his junior inspector, document the accompaniment and assign him independent inspections of the RAM licensees as appropriate if the field evaluations are satisfactory.
B.
Enforcement Procedures Enforcement Procedures is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comments and recommendations are made:
1.
Comment Enforcement letters should be sent within 30 days following an inspection.
In reviewing the selected compliance files, three cases were found in which the enforcenent letter was sent later than 30 days after the inspection.
Recommendation We recommend the Program re-evaluate the compliance tracking system and modify it as necessary to ensure that timely enforcement letters will be sent.
2.
Comment Enforcement procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulatory requirements. Three cases of repeated violations on the part of licensees, including one case of a violation repeated four times, was handled routinely.
In these cases, the State is not taking appropriate enforcement action.
Recommendation We recommend that the Nevada RCP take escalated enforcement action on repeat violators. Since Nevada has no civil penalties, except at the low level radioactive waste site, appropriate actions could include increased inspection frequency, follow-up inspections, enforcement conferences, imposition of more restrictive license conditions, dividing a broad license into several specific licenses or suspension of a license in extreme cases.
..