ML20237C036
| ML20237C036 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1987 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Griepentrog J NEVADA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712180082 | |
| Download: ML20237C036 (6) | |
Text
- ___ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ ._ __ _
I c5#Ng UNITED STATES
. ., o k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 !
t
%, ...../ DEC 171981 l' Mr. Jerry Griepentrog, Director Department of Human Resources 505 East King Street, Room 600 Carson City, Nevada 89710 l
Dear Mr. Griepentrog:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack Hornor, Region V State Agreement I Representative, and Ms. Beth Riedlinger, Health Physicist, Region V Radioactive Materials Section, held with you and Mr. William Schneider, Chief, l Bureau of Regulatory Health Services, on I:ovember 20, 1987, following the l conclusion of our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control !
program. l The results of our review indicate the Nevada 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. The '
compatibility finding is based on your commitment to revise the Nevada i Regulations to eliminate the exemption for glass enamel and glass enamel frit !
by July 1, 1988.
l We were pleased to find substantial improvements in your program, particularly increased management involvement and staffing level. The close attention by you and your senior staff has been a significant contributor to these improvements and we recommend this be continued.
Following our last review, we commented on the need for improvements in enforcement practices and the need for a definitive enforcement policy for violations in waste packaging and transportation by waste generators transferring waste to the low-level waste site. We were pleased to find improvement in your enforcement actions and understand that a revised enforcement plan is due to be implemented in January 1988.
He have concerns regarding the State's license renewal review for the Beatty low-level radioactive waste site. The effort seems to lack coordination and nay need more attention from upper management. We suggest a project manager be a,ppointed to plan and coordinate State actions to evaluate the license renewal application and to ensure milestones are met.
Enclosure 1 contains comments regarding the technical and administrative aspects of the review. We would appreciate your responding to our 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.
^~
8712180082 871217~~ !
PDR STPRG ESG h
a Mr. Jerry Griepentrog I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Hornar and Ms. Riedlinger during the review.
l l Sincerely, 4
I h
CarltonK5mmerer, Director State, local and Indian Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
As stated l
cc: w/ enclosures V. Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC William C. Schneider, Nevada Stanley R. Marshall, Nevada John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room l
l l
l l
)
l l
l l
I l
l l
ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE NEVADA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT I. LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is made:
Comment In the printing of the Nevada Regulations Parts 459.382 through ,
459.384 (relating to brachytherapy and teletherapy radiation safety) !'
were omitted in the current edition of the regulations.
Recommendation We recommend corrected copies of the regulations be printed and distributed as soon as possible.
II. ORGANIZATION Internal Organization of the Radiation Control Program is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made:
Comment The RCP should be organized to provide specific lines of supervision :
from program management for the execution of program policy. The RCP Supervisor is still somewhat unsure of his authority and responsibilities, particularly with respect to the low-level waste site licensing renewal and regulatory oversight of its operation.
Recommendation We recommend a conference be held between upper management and the supervisor to sharpen understandings of the supervisor's functions.
The assignment of a project manager for the license renewal is
, recommended. The decisions should then be documented.
III. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION l
~ !
Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is made:
l l
O .
l-3-tn
. U 2
Comment The State RCP should have a written Emergency Response Plan defining the responsibilities and actions to be taken by the appropriate State agencies. Emergency communication procedures should be adequately established and the plan should be distributed to appropriate persons and agencies. The Radiological Health Section has its own response plan for radioactive materials, but it is not included or referenced in the statewide emergency response plan. Also, the section's phone number is incorrectly listed, and the new emergency call list has not been distributed to the Las Vegas or Beatty inspectors or to other state, county and local emergency response units.
Recommendation We recommend the section correct its plan and distribute it to the proper: parties. The Nevada Energency Plan should then be revised to include, or reference, the radiological health plan.
IV. COMPLIANCE i A. Status of Inspection Program is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is made:
Connent The RCP should maintain statistics which are adequate to permit Program Management to assess the status of the inspection program on a periodic basis. The index file card method used by the RCP for tracking the compliance program is outdated and several misfiled or missing cards were noted. This is a repeat finding from the last review.
Recommendation We again recommend a new computerized tracking system be developed or the card file be reviewed for accuracy against the license and compliance files and updated as necessary.
B. Enforcement Procedures is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comments with our recommendations are made:
Comment Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulatory requirements.
Following our last review, we commented on the inadequate enforcement actions taken at the low-level waste site with respect to shipping violations by waste generators who had transferred waste to the site. During this review, we found improvement in the enforcement actions; however, there were still 25 citations issued by the onsite inspector of shipping violations by waste generators that were not followed up by the State.
l 4
Recommendation We were given a copy of the new enforcement plan due to be implemented at the site by January 20, 1988. This plan describes the actions to be taken by the site operator or the State at each severity level. We recommend frequent reviews by management to ensure the new procedures are being followed. We also recommend that the regulatory agency having licensing jurisdiction over a waste generator, who has violated packaging or shipping requirements, be notified by the State that the violations occurred.
Commert The inspector and compliance supervisor should review licensee responses to enforcement actions. It was found that the onsite inspector at the Beatty site is not being sent copies of enforcement ,
letters to users or advised of other enforcement actions. This lack of communication prevents the inspector from verifying the appropriate corrective actions have been taken by the users.
Recommendation We recommend the RCP program supervisor assure that the onsite inspector at Beatty is furnished copies of all enforcement letters and warnings to violators and that he obtain feedback regarding the user's corrective actions.
C. Inspection Reports is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made:
1 Comment Findings of inspections should be documented in a report fully )
descrihing the scope of inspections and substantiating all items j of noncompliance and health and safety matters. Nevada performs j monthly partial inspections of the low-level radioactive waste site. (1 An annual summary is then prepared to ensure all aspects of the j licensed operations have been inspected. No summary was compiled i
. for the 1986 cycle of inspections. )
i Recommendation We recommend the 1986 summary be completed and it be reviewed by management for completeness of the 1986 inspection effort. ;
Procedures should be developed to assure the annual summary is i l prepared on a regular scheduled basis in the future.
I L
4 i
i Enclosure 2 l Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review )
of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" ]
j l
The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control i Programs," were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987 as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 29 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. .l Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public hedith and safety. If significant problems exist in one or more 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 perfonnance 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 and is compatibic with the NRC's program. If one or more significant Category I comments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the j
staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or i defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their i effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review. If additional i information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may i request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a i follow-up or special, limited review. NRC staff mey hold a special k meeting with appropriate State representatives. No significant items I will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Commission will be j informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State '
programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke )
all or part of the Agreement in accordance with section 274j or the Act.
l l
1 l
1