ML20155F116
| ML20155F116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1986 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Beare J WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604210320 | |
| Download: ML20155F116 (7) | |
Text
- ~-
Ie n acg'o e
UNITED STATE 3 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
t REGION V O
g 1450 MARIA LANE.SulTE 210 s%***"g WALNUT CREEK, CAllFORNIA 94596 HAR 2 61986 Dr. John Beare, Director Division of Health (M/S ET-26)
Department of Social and Health Services 1112 South Quince Street Olympia, Washington 98504
Dear Dr. Beare:
This is to confirm the discussions Mr. Jack Hornor, Region V State Agreement Representative, held with you and your staff on February 7, 1986, following our review and evaluation of the State radiation control program.
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 Washington, the staff believes that the Washington program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program.
There are, however, comments pertaining to the mill program that are worthy of management's attention.
The Washington regulations require that an annual review be performed by the State of sureties for closure of the mill sites. Such reviews have not been performed annually and in one case, one mill licensee has not responded to inquiries on this matter. The State needs to reinstitute these reviews on an annual basis and aggressively pursue each case to a satisfactory conclusion.
The State needs to resolve certain tailings issues concerning the Dawn mill. We understand that the licensee contends that two mill tailings piles are the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, as amended.
There is, however, no documentation from DOE that confirms this. The State should pursue this matter with Dawn and DOE. With respect to the Western Nuclear closure surety, the State needs to work with the Spokane Indian Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assure that the surety funds, if needed, will be made available. A formal agreement documenting this would be appropriate.
We would appreciate your review of our comments and recommendations and would like to receive your specific plans to improve Washington's radiation control program.
Enclosure I contains additional comments regarding the technical aspect ; of the materials and waste management programs (Enclosure 1).
You may wish to have Mr. T. R. Strong, Head, Radiation Control Section, address these comments.
8604210320 860326 PDR STPRQ ESCWA PDR b
I g
4 MAR 2 61986 Dr. John Beare Enclosure 2 contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs.
+
' is'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 you and your staff extended to Mr. Hornor t,nd our staff.
Sincerely,
. /l. 0 -
/ou o MarEin Regional Administrah r
Enclosures:
As st.ated cc w/ enclosures T. R. Strong, Head, Radiation Control Section State Public Document,R,oom _._
- NEC'Public-Document Room:-(SP01)
'G?WFKerrf'DirecitSI,'~' Office of State Programs rw -
--6*
r,---
w
---4 Y
~
w
= -
W-r ww-s~v-9*-
w x
w-~w w ~
='r-sM <
v=-
1
ENCLOSURE 1 Comments and Recommendations on the Technical Aspects of the Washington Radiation Control Program for Agreement Materials 1.
Radioactive Materials 1.
- Licensing Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The State Radiation control program (RCP) should have internal licensing guides, checklists and policy memoranda consistent with-current NRC practice. The Washington RCP is referencing telephone calls and telephone memoranda in license conditions.
Recommendation We recommend the State require licensees to confirm requested license changes made by telephone with letters. The license changes'should then be tied to these letters which should be kept in the license file along with the telephone memoranda.
(This practice need not apply to obvious typographical errors which may be corrected based on telephone calls as long as the correction is dated and signed and the telephone memo retained in the file.)
2.
. Compliance A.
Status of Inspection is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment I
Both the'NRC and the State require inspection of new licensees within six months after the license is issued.
Inspection of the files revealed three instances in which the inspection was not completed within the initial license inspection period.
This finding is repeated from the previous review.
Recommendation We recommend you modify your method of assigning inspections to. assure the new licensees are inspected within the six-month period.
B.
Inspector's Performance and Capability is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is made.
4
-_,_,._w.,.,rw-.s--
,,v v.w..,.
7.,,,
,,_.v,.y
-y
l t
_2_
l Comment Inspectors should demonstrate an understanding of inspection techniques and be able to properly evaluate health and safety problems. During the field accompaniments of State inspectors by the NRC representative, it was noted that the inspectors placed almost total emphasis on review of licensee records, and failed to make an adequate observation of the licensee's
~
use of radioactive materials or to interview ancillary personnel.
In the two cases in point, major areas of noncompliance that were associated with the licensee's use and handling of radioactive materials were not detected through I
records review but were disclosed as a result of observations of operations that were made by the NRC reviewer.
l l
Recommendation We recommend that the inspection program consider a plan for records review (similar to the one taught in the Inspection Procedures Course) in order that more onsite time and emphasis can be given to observation of licensee use and handling of radioactive materials and ancillary employee interviews.
C.
Responses to Incidents and Alleged Incidents is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our i
recommendation is made.
Comment The Washington RCP has three separate incident response systens: materials, waste management and emergency response.
Of these systems, however, only the materials incidents are routinely summarized and forwarded to the NRC.
Recommendation We recommend that the State combine their incident response files and forward to NRC the evaluation and summary of those incidents which are applicable from each of these files.
D.
Enforcement Procedures is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment Licensees should respond to enforcement letters within 20 to 30 days. The State should have and utilize a tracking system for followup on those licensees who do not respond within this time period. There were two licensees whose responses to significant items of noncompliance were several months overdue and the RCP had apparently taken no action, t
1 I
6 Recommendation We recommend that the Washington RCP develop and implement a tracking system to identify licensees who fail to respond to enforcement letters within the 30-day response period.
II.
Low-Level Waste Program (LLW) 1.
Responses to Incidents and Alleged Incidents is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment Incidents should be promptly evaluated with management review and sign-off. The incidents should be closed out and filed when completed. The Waste Management incident response file was missing several incidents (later found) and many of these incidents were apparently not reviewed by management nor closed out.
Repommendation We recommend that the Washington Waste Management Section develop and implement a new incident response tracking and filing system which includes management review, close-out and sign-off.
2.
Inspector's Performance and Capability is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment As a minimum, the low-level waste program manager should conduct and document annual field evaluations of each inspector, both onsite and headquarters inspectors of the site, to assess performance and ensure application of appropriate and consistent policies and guides. The Washington LLW program manager stated that he had performed accompaniments with all LLW inspectors; however, there was no documentation.
Recommendation We recommend that the LLW program manager document accompaniments of all LLW site inspectors.
l
4-
~
3.
Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
Comment
.The State has performed a review of the funds for losure, perpetual care and maintenance for the LLW site and found the funds for perpetual care and maintenance to be it-sufficient.
Recommendation We recommend that the State review and adjust the closure, perpetual care and maintenance funds annually, to assure that these funds are adequate.
1 l
t..
}
9 e
s-e r,, --
c,.
e-
,v-,v
.g.
..,_.m
-..~.,.-.,,9.,
m_ - - - -
,y r
ENCLOSURE 2 APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROCRAMS" 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 to 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 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 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 affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority basis. When more than one significant Category I conment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical. The NRC would request an immediate 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 II comments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public. The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
i
__