ML20214U412
| ML20214U412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/08/1987 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Gebbie K OREGON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706110177 | |
| Download: ML20214U412 (7) | |
Text
@Dl F
UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REOULATORY COMMISSION
[.. W[,
.,y,**** p,j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 f
'JUN 0 81987 Ms. Kristine M. Gebbie, Administrator State Health Division 1400 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portlard, Oregon 97201
Dear Ms. Gebbie:
This is to confinn the discussion Mr. Jack Hornor, NRC State Agreement Representative, held on May 1,1987, with Dr. Lester N. Wright, State Public Health Officer, and your staff following our review and evaluation of the State's rediation control progran.
The results of our review indicate that the Oregon Radiation Control Program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. However, we are unable to offer a statement of compatibility pending the State's corrective actions for two Category I deficiencies.
Status of Regulations is a Category I Indicator. Pursuant to NRC Cuide11nes, the State should have regulations essentially identical to 10 CFR Part 40 and have a high degree of unifomity with other NRC regulations. Also State regulations deemed matters of compatibility should be amended as soon as practicable but no later than three years following.he regulation adoption by ?!RC, Following our May 1986 review we comented on the inconsistency between the NRC's 10 CFR 40.22(a) and the State's regulation pertaining to general license quantities of source materials and the requirement for notificationi the State has not yet corrected this discrepancy. During the June 1985 updating of the State's regulations, the State elected not to adopt the t!RC Septenber 1983 changes to the transportation regulations and as a result the changes were not adopted within the three year time span. He understand the State is currently in the process of revising the appropriate regulatiuns.
Where regulatory responsibilities are divided between State agencies, clear understandings should exist as to division of responsibilities and requirements for courdination. This relates tn a Category I Indicator, Legal Authority, it was found during this review that in some cases the Oregon Department of Energy (000E) and the Oregon State Health Division are sharing responsibility for regulation of agreement materials with no understanding or agreement of responsibilities or the associated authority and are apparently issuing conflicting regulations. This natter was discussed with Mr. Bill Dixon, Administrator of Siting and Regulations Division of the 000E, who was unaware of the scops of the agreement between the NRC and the State of Oregon regarding the regulation of agreement materials. The ODOE regulations are now being n/06110177 H70600 l'DH Off'HO EGCOR 1
\\
i
m O
Ms. Kristine M. Gebbie +
evaluated by the NRC to determine compatibility with NRC regulations; however, in order to confonn to the NRC guidelines, the two agencies must develop a written understanding between them defining specific responsibilities and authorities. We suggest one agency, the State Health Division, be named to interface with the NRC and be named the lead agency for regulating agreement material.
It has been experience of the NRC and other Agreement States that a technical staffing level of from 1.0 to 1.5 person years per 100 licenses is needed to maintain a satisfactory radiation control program.
The current level authorized in Oregon is 0.63 with 1.65 technical staff members for 262 licenses. During this review period,1.3 employees were temporarily reassigned from X-ray to radioactive materials, but it is our understanding that this reassignment will be ended July 1,1987. We are concerned that unless management attention is given to this potentially critical understaffing situation, the State will not be able to operate an adequate program.
We would appreciate your reviewing our recomendations and re)1ying to us with your specific plans to address the issues discussed a)ove. When the revised regulations are issued and the legal authority between the two agencies resolved, we will be in a position to consider a finding of compatibility for the program. contains additional coments regarding the technical aspects of the review. These coments were discussed with Mr. Ray Paris during our exit meeting with him. Mr. Paris was advised at the time that a response to these findings would be requested by this office and you may wish to have Mr. Paris address the Enclosure 1 coments. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. is a cosy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otlerwise to be made available for public review.
On April 12, 1987, NRC reorganized its staff. The State Agreement Program is now a part of the new Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reports to the Comission. One purpose of this organizational change was to provide an improved focus for NRC relationships with the States. Our regional offices will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory programs. We encourage you and your staff to continue to look to the Regional Administrator and his staff as the primary contact with NRC.
~
a
\\
Ms. Kristine M. Gebbie I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Hornor during the review.
Sincerely, p
ton Kamere, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Chairman Zech Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Carr Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC Ray D. Paris, Manager, Radiation Control Section Dr. Lester N. Wright, State Health Officer John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room
\\
ENCLOSURE 1 C0t9 TENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE OREGON RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I.
Legislation and Regulations A.
Updating of Regulations is a Category II Indicator. The following coments with our recommendation is made.
Coment Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, opportunity should be provided for the NRC to comment on draft changes in State regulations.
It is the State's written policy to provide NRC the opportunity to coment on proposed changes early in the promulgation process.
During the last revision process, the NRC was not given copies of the draft changes until the review meeting or less than six weeks before they were to become effective. This does not allow sufficient time for a thorough review by the NRC and exchange of correspondence to resolve possible conflicts.
Recomendation We recomend the State adhere to their procedure of providing the NRC opportunity for comments early in the revision process.
II. Management and Administration A.
Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category I Indicator. The following minor coment with our recomendation is made.
Consnent The State should have a written plan for responding to i
radioactive materials incidents, it should be reviewed annually by program staff, and periodic drills should be perfomed to test the plan. During this review period, the State developed an acceptable rosponse plan; however, interviews with the radioactive materials staff indicated a lack of understanding of the plan or their responsibilities.
Recomendation We recomend program managerent conduct emergency response training and drills if possible.
If time and manpower constraints do not allow a complete drill, scenar$os could be developed to test the staff member's understanding of the l
plan.
T~
t B.
Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recomendation is made.
Coment The RCP should establish written internal procedures to assure that the staff perfoms its duties as required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices. The current written procedures for internal processing of license applications, inspection policies and procedures, escalated enforcement, license termination, incident reporting and other functions required of the program are for the most part outdated and do not reflect the current practice.
Recommendation We recomend the administrative procedures be reviewed and revised as necessary to provide the proper staff guidance, unifomity and continuity.
C.
Management is a Category II Indicator. The following coment with our recomendation is made.
Coment Program management should perfom periodic reviews of selected license cases and conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess perfomance and assure application of appropriate and consistent policies and guides. Although one field accompaniment was performed by the staff supervisor during the review period, no management reviews were conducted.
It was also noted that while the size of the Oregon program makes it necessary for the radioactive materials staff supervisor to conduct inspections and write licenses no mechanism exists for management review of the supervisor's work product.
Recomendation We recommend the program manager conduct and document periodic reviews of selected license cases and establish procedures to assure annual field accompaniments of each person conducting inspections.
III.
Compliance A.
Status of Inspection Program is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is.made.
Coment l
At the time of the review, the State had one Priority 2 and four Priority 3 inspections overdue by more than fifty percent of their scheduled frequency. This is a small number of
\\
overdue inspections and the State has furnished the NRC representative with a written plan to eliminate the backlog.
Recomendation We recommend the State concentrate on inspecting the licenses with overdue inspections.
3 i
4
)
i r
,I i
4 a
--,--.n,
a 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 to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the Indicators into 2 categories.
Category I 1hdicators 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 coment made.
If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the progren 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 coment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would request an imediate response, and may perfom 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 coments 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 coments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
l l
l l