ML20199B111
| ML20199B111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/1986 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Gebbie K OREGON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606170029 | |
| Download: ML20199B111 (6) | |
Text
.
"2 9'o UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
3 E
REGION V O
g *****,o'g 1450 MARIA LANE,SulTE 210 g
WALNUT CREEK CALIFORNIA 94596 JUN 111986 Ms. Kristine M. Gebbie, Administrator State Health Division 1400 S. W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201
Dear Ms. Gebbie:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack W. Hornor, NRC State Agreement Representative, held on May 9, 1986, with you and your staff following our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control program.
The results of our review indicate that the Oregon Radiation Control Program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC and other agreement states for regulating agreement materials. We are pleased to note the State's progress in increasing the staffing to levels established by NRC guidelines, and in reducing the backlogs in both licensing and compliance. contains comments regarding the technical and administrative aspects of the review. We would appreciate your reviewing our comments and then you may wish to have Mr. Ray Paris, Manager, Radiation Control Section, respond to these comments. Enclosure 2 contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. Enclosure 3 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 extended by your staff to Mr. Hornor during the review.
Sincerely, 4.
u //S -
AvJohn. artin Regional Adminis tor f
Enclosures:
1.
Comments and Recommendations on Technical and Administrative aspects of the Oregon Radiation Control Program 2.
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" 3.
Letter to Ms. Kristine Gebbie from John Martin, I
dtd. 6/11/86 l
cc: w/ enclosures:
l Ray Paris, Manager, Radiation Control Section f
G. Wayne Kerr, Director, Office of State Programs llRC Public Document' Room, Document Control Desk [SP01)'
I v,
(l 0606170029 860611 l
PDR STPRG ESGO y
---.n
+--
-y-
ENCLOSURE 1 Comments and Recommendations on Technical Aspects of the Oregon Radiation Control Program'for Agreement Materials a
I.
Legisistion and Regulations A.
Status of Regulations is a Category I Indicator. The following L
minor comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment i.
The State should adopt regulations to maintain a high degree of l
uniformity with the NRC regulations. The State did not accommodate one of the NRC comments in their last updating of regulations. It a
was pointed out that the regulation, Oregon 333-102-101 "The general license quantities of source material," differs from NRC's in that i
the quantities of source material are different and there is a requirement for notification. This aspect is not compatible with NRC's 10 CFR 40.22(a) or with the Suggested State Regulations of the l
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.
Recommendation
{
We recommend that the State change this regulation as soon as j
practicable to become compatible with NRC and the Suggested State Regulations (SSR). We understand that the Oregon staff agrees the l
change is needed.
B.
Updating of Regulations is a Category II Indicator. The following i
comment and recommendation is made.
i l
Comment t
j The State should establish procedures for incorporating appropriate amendments to State regulations in a timely manner, normally within three years of adoption by NRC. During the December 1984 updating of the Oregon regulations, the State elected not to adopt the NRC September 1983 changes to the transportation regulations until the next routine updating of their regulations. The three year period is up in September 1986.
I Recommendation i
We recommend that the State adopt the September 1983 NRC changes to the transportation regulations prior to September 1986 (Reference i
letters D. Nussbaumer to D. Stewart-Smith, dated December 19, 1984 and January 11, 1985).
j i
r.--
-, - ~ -, _. - - -
--m--._m._,_
_,.,.-,---.,-_- _. -.- _, _~ _, -...-.. -, - _,,r-.y
--_---.y-,-. - - -, - - -. -
. II.
Management and Administration Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment is made with our recommendation.
Comment The State should have a written plan for response to radioactive material incidents. This plan should cover incidents at major nuclear facilities as well as spills, overaxposures, transportation accidents, fire, explosion, theft, etc. The Oregon Emergency Response Plan, which has been in draft form since the last review, addresses major accidents at nuclear facilities but does not appear to be applicable to incidents such as spills, overexposures, transportation accidents, fire, explosion, theft, etc.
Recommendation We recommend that the State modify their Emergency Response Plan so that responses to incidents such as those involving transportation of radioac-tive materials, etc. are clearly addressed as well as the response to a major accident at a nuclear facility. The plan should then be issued in final form.
III. Licensing Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment is made with our recommendation.
Comment Current regulatory practice for most licensees requires that licensee survey instruments be calibrated at least annually and with a standard source traceable to NBS. License applications were found to allow two year calibration frequency or to lack specification that calibration sources were traceable to NBS standards. In one case, it was specified that all survey instruments were cross calibrated against a single meter whose only calibration was the initial factory calibration, which had expired.
Recommendation We recommend that the State require that applicants adhere to the survey instrument calibration methods described in the NRC Regulatory Guide 10.8, Appendix D, or equivalent.
o,
i IV.
Compliance A.
Inspection Frequency is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment and recommendation is made.
Comment The RCP should establish an inspection priority system with a minimum inspection frequency consistent with the NRC system. Since the last review, the State has changed their inspection frequency to conform to the NRC's schedule for the majority of their licensees.
4 There are some categories, however, in which the State has established a range of frequencies, allowing assignment of different priorities to licensees of the same category. Some of the frequencies allowed on this schedule do not meet the NRC minimum inspection frequency. Also, the priority is not indicated on the license or in the inspection file.
Recommendation We recommend that management review the NRC inspection frequency system against their system to assure that equivalent licensees are inspected as frequently as NRC's system requires and that this priority be listed on both the license and the inspection reports for clarity.
l B.
Inspector's Performance and Capability is a Category I Indicator.
The following minor comment and recommendation is made.
Comment The compliance supervisor should accompany each inspector at least annually, specifically to assess performance and assure application l
of appropriate and consistent policies and guides. This was not being carried out at the time of the review.
Recommendation We recommend that management accompaniments be performed at least annually for all inspectors and, if possible, more frequently for new inspectors.
C.
Inspection Reports is a Category II Indicator. The following comment and recommendation is made.
i
ts Comment Inspection reports should uniformly and adequately document the results of inspections and identify areas of the licensee's program which should receive special attention at the next inspection. The State uses inspection forms which are incomplete in some areas.
Items which are not documented include licensee's survey instruments
- and calibration, traceability of standards, interviews with ancillary workers, and titles of licensee personnel in attendance at the exit interview.
Recommendation We recommend that the State modify their inspection forms accordingly.
l I
I l
l I
\\
i Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" i
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 j
program areas. Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two 4
j categories.
1 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 i
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 mannrr.
4 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 i
addressed 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 immediate response, and may perform a followup review of the program within i
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 I
evaluated during the next regular program review.
i i
i
.