ML20195J258
| ML20195J258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/25/1988 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Rolfs R WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8812010389 | |
| Download: ML20195J258 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
d
%l UMTED STATS 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
{
.j wAsmotoN. D. C. MM
%,,,,,/
NOV15IllI Mr. Robert R. Rolfs Acting Director Division of Heilth (M/S ET-26)
Department of Social and Health Services I
1112 South Quince Street Olympia. Washington 98504
Dear Mr. Rolfs:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack Horner held with you and your staff on October 28, 1988, following our review of the State's radiation control program, j
As a result of our review of the Agency's program and the routine exchange j
of information between the NRC and the State, we believe that the State's program for regulating agreement naterials is adequate to protect the public l
health and safety and compatible with the Comission's program.
We were particularly interested in recent events affecting the uranium mills program. The Spokane Indian Tribe is preparing to accept transfer of the Sherwood mill from Watern Nuclear, Inc. prior to January 1989. Because the facility is located within the Spokane Reservation the jurisdiction of the facility will change from the State of Washington to the USNRC af ter the transfer is complete.
NRC staff is coordinating with your staff to assure a smooth regulatory transition.
At the time of the last review, an unresolved issue remained between Dawn Mining Company and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in which the mill owners contended that two of their mill tailing piles are the responsibility of the 00E under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
00E has notified Dawn Mining Company and the State th3t they have again detennined that the site is not eligible for consideration for clean-up under Title !
of Public Law (PL)95-604 As we understand it. Dawn Mining Correany has presented three possible reclamation options, and the State is preparing an Environmental impact Statenent (EIS) to be presented during the public hearing on the rsnewal of the Dawn license in December 1988. We ask that this office be kept current as to the progress of the reclamation and renewal.
In our last review we offered a coment and reconnendation concerning the State's emergency plan, particularly as it relates to incidents other than those occurring at fixed nuclear facilities. While the State has responded adequately to such incidents the State's written emergency response plan needs to be revised to address radioactive ruterials incidents.
In this review we found this recomendation has not been implemented.
In your response to this repeat cowent, we would appreciate receiving a schedule for implemanting this recomenda tion. contains corrents and recomendations regarding the technical and administrative aspects of the review. We would appreciate your responding to our coments. Enclosure 2 contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing agreemens ; tate programs, f
6312010339 581105 PDR STFRG EiGWA I
t 1
i' 2
NOV 2 51909 J
l in accordance with NRC practice, I an also enclosing a second copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Rooms or otherwise to be i
made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation i
extended the NRC staff during the review.
j Sincerely.
0:igi.u! Signed if l
Carlt:n Krameter j
Carlton Kamerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs j
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
as stated cc w/ enclosures:
Y. Stello Executive Director for Operations, NRC John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC T. R. Strong, Chief, Office of Radiation Protection i
)
State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Rcom i
Distribution:
4 Chairman Lando Zech, Jr.
Comissioner Thomas Roberts i
Cornissioner Kenneth Rogers Comissioner Kenneth Carr Corvnissioner James Curtiss i
Harold Denton, Director, GPA
)
Carlton Kamerer, Director, GPA/5LITP Ren Hauber, Deputy Director, GPA/SLITP Vandy Miller, Asst. Director, GPA/SLITP i
l State File GPA/SLITP i
Docum nt Control Desk SP01 Jack Horner, RSAR, RV EDO r/f MQUEST COPY, YESRE0 VEST COPY,
YESRE0VESTCOPY; REQUEST 6 T
YES / NO 1
/ NO
/ NO YI5
'J A5 l
)
RV/9md WFRScarranoyJMartinupk gh4'/
Hr l
JHorner cx l
11/18/88 11//f/88 11/4 /88 d//
f F/
REQLWT C0FY l FEQUEST COPY SEhD TO FRD ~
a j
YES e/ H O
$YES / NO
' YFS / NO 3 r
CKarfuer 11/ /88 L
Connents and Reconnendations on Technical and Administrative Aspects of the Washington Radiation Control Pr
'em MANAGEMENT AND ADMIN!5TRATION A.
Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category ! Indicator. The followin connent and recomendation is considered to be not of Njor si nificance at this time.
Coment The RCP should have a written emergency plan specifically for response to incidents involving radioactive storials.
The plan should be reviewed annually for adequacy and periodic drills should be perforined to test the plan. We found in our review that while the State has adequately responded to incidents, the State's emergency plan needs to address RCP office interactions for incidents other than those occurring at fixed nuclear facilities.
Interviews with staff members also indicated the need for additional training and improved coordination between groups responsible for emergency recponse.
The significanct of this finding is mitigated because the State has responded adequately to sterials incidents in the pastl.%ever, this is a repeat finding.
Reconnendation We again recomend revision of the emergency response plan to address radienctive mterials, including transportation and waste.
Procedures should be written to clearly identify staff resources and to define the resporsibilities of all sections and agencies involved in the plan. All staff members should be trained in these revised plans and procedures.
B.
Laboratory Support is a Category !! Indicator. The following coment with our recomendetton is mda.
Comnent The RCP should have the laboratory support capabil-ity in house, or readily available through established procedures, to conduct bioassays, analyze environmental samples, analyze smoles collected by inspectors, etc., on a priority established by the RCP.
In Washington, the laboratory support for the Office of RaCation Protection (ORP) is furnishtJ by another office in the Diusion of Health, the Environmental Padiation Laboratory (ERL) which is located in Seattle. We found that RCP has u de a practic of not taking swipes for the detection of low energy beta emitters during coepliance inspections becaute of disagreemnts between the ORP and the ERL over cost.s and the difficulty of obtaining tirely tesults from ERL.
i
2 Recomendation We recomend a formal agreement be drafted between ORP and ERL describing the services, fees and expected turn-around time.
In addition, consideration should be given to obtaining laboratory counting equipment for low energy beta and gross alpha and beta for use by the inspection staff in Olympia. This would supplement ERL capability for both ra te and emergency inspections.
II.
COMPLIANCE A.
Inspection Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following coments with our recomendations are made.
1.
Coment Written inspection policies should be issued to establish a policy for conducting unannounced inspections, obtaining corrective action, following up and closing out previous violations, interviewing workers and observing operations, assuring exit interviews with nanagement, and issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety problems. The State's inspection procedures are outdated and do rot adequately cover such important items as i
observation of operations, exit meetings with management and follow-up and close out of previous items of noncompliance.
We feel the coments below relate directly to the lack of adequate written inspection procedures.
Recomendation We recomend the State's inspection procedures, checklists and forms be revised to be consistent with current NRC guidance and to assure uniform and complete inspection practices.
2.
Coment Licensee management muet be informed of problems found by inspectors in their safety programs at +.he end of an inspection. Among other things, this enables licensee management to promptly initiate corrective measures.
In several cases reviewed, t'ie inspector did not hold an exit interview with management, although there were significant or multiple items of noncompliance.
Recomendation We recomend exit interviews be conducted at the upper management level during all inspections.
In the event this is not possible at the time of the inspection, meetings with management could be scheduled at a time convenient for both parties, or in extenuating circumstances. *he interview could be conducted by telephone.
l 3
3.
Coment In some inspection reports, the items of noncompliance, areas of concern and recomendations were not clearly defined, or the disposition of previous items of noncompliance were not indicated.
Recomendation We. recomend the procedures be revised ensure the exit interviews and inspection forms clearly differentiate between items of noncompliance and recomendations. We also recomend changes in the procedures to improve the follow through and close-out of previous items of noncompliance.
- 4. Comment It is the State's policy to conduct annual field inspections for all industrial radiographers.
However, during this review period, of the tairty-one inspections performed, only three included field inspections.
Recomendation NRC guidance recomends annual field examinations be performed on twenty-five percent of the industrial radiographers, including reciprocity inspections. We suggest the State increase their performance of field inspections to at least that level.
III.
LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT A. Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following coment and recomendation is made.
Coment The State has been relying on NRC procedures, supplemented with their own Policy Memorandums, to administer the low-level waste program.
Inconsistencies found in regulatory and enforcement practices indicate the need for written administrative and technical procedures.
Recomendation We recomend the State develop and implement written procedures specific to the administration of the Washington low-level waste program.
These procedures should be consistent with NRC guidance and procedures at other operating sites.
The procedures should include review of a license application, preparation of SEPA documents or EA's, qualification of products and processes critical to facility operations and procedures for inspection and enforcement.
l
~
4 B. Staffing Level is a Category II Indicator. The following coninent and reconinendation is made.
Coninent The State's ORP organization chart shows five professional FTE's and one manager assigned to LLW.
At the present time, only three of these positions are filled.
We found several overdue reports, evaluations and analyses, all necessary for proper regulation of the site. That and other problems found in the program relate to the lack of staff.
Recomendation We recomend the staffing be increased to the level indicated on the organization chart.
C. Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment and recomendation is made.
Coninent In some cases, we found the State is perfonning the analysis to support specific authorizations of variances to the disposal site license.
These evaluations should be performed by the licensee and reviewed by the State.
The present practice unnecessarily diverts staff effort from regulatory tasks.
Recomendation We recomend that procedures specify the requests for variances of specific approvals will not be considered unless the licensee, US Ecology, has already evaluated the request against the State's i
requireme ts.
D. Enforcement Procedures is a Category I Indicator.
The following coments and recomendations are considered to be not of major significance at this time.
Coment Enforcement actions against waste generators using the site are not always consistent.
Reconinendation We reconinend written enforcement procedures with severity action levels be developed and implemented.
5 Conment Reports required by the licensee in the license conditions have not always been submitted to the State at the time they become due.
The licensee has not been cited, although some reports are several months overdue.
Recommendation We recommend the State insist the licensee adhere to the license conditions.
The State should establish a system for identifying when such reports are due, to flag these that are overdue, and promptly review those reports when receiver:.
r 1
e