ML20245D615
| ML20245D615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1989 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Gebbie K OREGON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906270173 | |
| Download: ML20245D615 (8) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ -
De s "g y
%,'o,%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
.; R WASHINGTON, D. C. P0555
\\...+/
June 21, 1989 1
Ms. Kristine M. Gebbie, Administrator Oregon State Health Division 1400 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201
Dear Ms. Gebbie:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack W. Hornor and Ms. B. J. Holt held with you and your staff on April 20, 1989, following our review and j
l evaluation of the State's radiation control program.
l As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange f
of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Oregon, the staff determined the Oregon program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Comission's program.
The NRC staff was pleased to find the Oregon regulations have been updated and are now compatible with regulations adopted by the NRC prior to February 1987. Although our staff believes the State's regulatory program is presently adequate and compatible, problems were found in seven Category II indicators. Four concern technical matters and are l
discussed in Enclosure 2.
In addition to these, three relate to the i
lack of resources for the program and we believe they need attention from upper management.
First, is the State's restriction on out-of-State travel.
In order to ensure compatible programs, the NRC currently provides technical training courses for Agreement State personnel. Recently an inspector was scheduled to attend our medical inspection training course, and although additional training of this employee must be completed before he can fully function as an independent member of the technical staff, he was unable to attend the course because of the travel restriction. Additionally, program staff should be permitted to attend technical meetings especially those which focus on reguhtory radiation protection issues. These meetings enhance the staff's abilities to understand and manage radioactive protection problems and provide an opportunity for the staff to share their knowledge with others.
8906270173 890621 l
PDR STPRG ESGD
Kristine M. Gebbie 2
Funding for travel to many of these meetings is funded by other agencies and organizations such as the NRC and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. We strongly urge the State to permit staff to participate in these meetings particularly when no expenditure of State travel funds are required.
Second, it has been the experience of the NRC as well as other Agreement States that it is necessary to maintain a professional staffing ratio of 1.0 to 1.5 person-years per 100 materials licenses. Oregon's staffing level is currently 0.73 person-years per 100 licenses. We feel that weaknesses we found in the program, due in part to the lack of adequate written procedures, relate directly to the inadequate staffing level.
We understand funding will become available for an additional position on July 1,1989, and we urge the position be filled quickly.
Lastly, Radioactive Materials Licensing has only one fully trained professional employee, the supervisor, and therefore it is essential the State hire a qualified health physicist. The radiation control section salary schedule is significantly lower than comparable positions in other departments within the State and in neighboring States competing in the same job market, and we are concerned as to your ability to recruit and retain qualified technical staff.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement j
State programs is attached as Enclosure 1. contains a summary of the staff's assessments and comments that were developed from the review of the program. These comments were discussed with Mr. Paris and his staff during our exit meeting with him. Mr. Paris was advised at the time that a response to these findings would be rsquested by this office and you may wish to have Mr. Paris address Enclosure 2 comments and recommendations.
7 I
Kristine M. Gebbie 3
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to our representatives during the review.
I am looking forward to your coments I
regarding out-of-State travel and the staffing level along with the responses to our recommendations from Mr. Paris.
Sincerely, 3
1 original signed by Carlton Kammerer l
Carlton Kamerer, Director 4
State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
V. Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV Ray Paris, Manager, Radiation Control Section William T. Dixon, State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room Distribution:
bec:
Chairman Zech SA RF Commissioner Roberts Dir RF Commissioner Carr HRDenton Commissioner Rogers CKamerer Commissioner Curtiss i
VMiller Jack Hornor, RV Dean Kunihiro, RV DCS(SP01)
ED0 RF Oregon File i
d 'See previous concurrence iYfvan?W+*)Ce%
0 y
- 5LITP
- GPA
- E
(:
WC :M15AB_dW:Un5 N
- 5LITP
- ----4D s----:...-----:---------:---------:-----
lAME :JHornor :RScarano :JMartin :VMill<
- CKammerer
- HRg 11
,I l
:e-
>----:--------:---------:---------:--d/89:6/
189
- 6/y/89
- 6/I /89
) ATE :5/17/89*:5/17/89* :5/17/89* :6/
ENCLOSURE I l
1 Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Padiation Control Procrams" i
The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as a NRC Policy Statement. The Guidelines provide 29 indicators for evaluating Agreement I
State program areas.
Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the 1
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 f all 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 compatible 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 for 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 staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Commission will be 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 of the Act, as amended.
ENCLOSURE 2
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS GD COMMENTS OREGON RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD MAY 2, 1987 TO APRIL 20, 1989 Scope of Review:
This program review was conducted in accordance with the Comission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs published in the Federal I
Register on June 4,1987, and the internal procedures established by the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs Office, Agreement States Program.
The State's program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided in the Guidelines. The review included inspector accompaniments, discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license ar.d compliance files, and the evaluation of the State's responses to a NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation of the review.
The 26th regulatory program review meeting with the Oregon Radiation Control Section was held during the period April 10-21, 1989 in Portland. The State wasrepresentedbyMr.RayParis, Manager,RadiationControlSection}.and Ms. Martha Dibblee. Supervisor, Radioactive Materials Licensing (RML A
review of selected license, compliance and incident files was conducted by Jack W. Horner, Region V, during the period April 10-21, 1989. Ms. B. J. Holt, Region III, assisted during the period April 17-21, 1989. Mr. Hornor conducted two accompaniments with Ms. Holt assisting on one accompaniment.
In addition to the routine program review, visits were made to two major licensees:
Teledyne Wah Chano, Albany (0RE-0001-4,5,6): On April 11 Mr. Hornar and Ms. Dibblee toured the licensee's f acility for processing rare earths. A complete tour of the facilities was conducted, and the licensee's programs for radiation safety and industrial hygiene were reviewed, including training and samplin exposures (from Ra, Th, U and daughters)g procedures. The potential are small except for potential airborne hazards. An excellent respiratory safety program is maintained and used in controlled areas. Overall, the health physics and environmental program appear to be satisfactory.
PrecisionCastpartsCorporation(ORE-0354-1): On April 21, Mr. Hornor, Ms. Holt and Ms. Dibblee visited the licensee's facilities where they use source material during a casting process. The acting radiation safety officer escorted the group through the source material preparation facility. The controlled areas were in the process of decontamination and clean-up to reduce routine worker doses. This work required the use of respirators and anti-C's and therefore the regulators did not enter the controlled area. The company's safety procedures and handling of radioactive material had improved significantly since the last visit by the NRC staff in 1987.
']
J l
2 A sumary meeting regarding the results of the review was held by Mr. Hornor and Ms. Holt on April 21, 1989 with Ms. Kristine Gebbie, Administrator, State Health Division, and Mr. Paris.
==
Conclusion:==
The Oregon program for the' control of agreement materials is adequate to i
protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the programs of the NRC.
l Status of Program Related to' Previous NRC Findings:
The previous NRC program review was concluded May 1,1987, and coments and recommendations were sent to the State in a letter dated June 8,1987.
I At that time the program was found adequate to protect the public health and safety, but compatibility was withheld pending the State's corrective actions for two Category I deficiencies, Status of Regulations and Legal Authority.. The Category I deficiencies were corrected and all of the other coments were satisfactorily resolved with the exception of one coment on Administrative Procedures. The failure of the State to develop adequate written procedures was discussed again during the exit meeting and with Mr. Paris and the RML supervisor, Ms. Martha Dibblee, during the staff sumary meeting.
It is repeated as a current coment.
Current Review Comments and Recommendations:
The Oregon radiation control program (RCP) satisfies the guidelines in 22 of the indicators. The State did not meet the guideifnes. in three Category II Indicators, Training, Staffing Level, and Staft Continuity, all of which were addressed in the main body of the letter.
In four indicators, improvement is needed to fully satisfy the gu4? alines. The following j
recommendations are made and a response is requested.
I.
Management and Administration Administrative Procedures is a Category 11 indicator. The following i
coment with our recommendation is made.
4 gment The RCP should establish written internal policy and administrative procedures to assure that program functions are carried out as required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in reguhtory practices. During the last review we found the State's administr.tive procedures were incomplete and outdated in many areas. The procedures still have not been completed, and we found inconsistencies in other i
program areas that could have been avoided by the proper use of written procedures. Procedures are particularly needed for maintaining adequate records of responses to incidents, in recording all communication with 1
licensees regarding licensing and enforcement actions, and in maintaining orderly files.
1 1
I t
3 Recommendation We recomend program management place higher priority or completing written procedures, and provide the resources necessary to complete the task.
II. Licensing Licensing Procedures is a Category II indicator. The following coment with our recommendation is made.
Coment I
The RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists, and i
policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice. Licenses issued with missing license conditions, failure to include necessary backup information in the files such as records of telecons with licensees and failure to include verification of a
leak tests of sealed sources in terminated licenses indicate the State's licensing procedures are not adequate. Oregon has only i
one cualified license reviewer, so second party review of licenses i
must be performed by administrative or junior professional staff.
Therefore, it is crucial to the program that licensing checklists and guides be accurate and comprehensive. However, guides and checklists have not been developed for all types of licenses.
Recommendation We recommend the procedures be completed and implemented, and checklists and tredel licenses be developed for all specific license categories. Our staff provided sample documents from the NRC and other Agreement States to be used as guides in developing licensing guides and checklistsa III. Compliance A.
Inspection Procedures is a Category II indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
gment Written inspection policies and inspection guides should be used by inspectors to assure uniform and complete inspection practices and provide technical guidance in the inspection of licensed programs. There have been frequent changing of the inspection forms without supporting procedures or instructions for their use which has resulted in inconsistencies in the inspection reports and in the files.
]
1 1
l L -----
4 Recommendation We recommend the State complete the inspection procedures and l
develop a uniform inspection plan with checklists specific to license type. The inspectors should then be trained in the new procedures and the system should remain in place for a reasonable period of time.
B.
Confirmatory Measurements is a Category II indicator. The l
following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment Instruments used for surveys and confirmatory measurements should be calibrated within the same time interval as required of the licensee being inspected.
The State does not have a system for tracking instrument calibration, and instruments used by inspectors were found to be out of calibration.
Recommendation We recommend the State develop a system to track and calibrate instruments within the required interval.
Sunmary Discussion with State Representatives:
A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review l
meeting was held with Ms. Kristine Gebbie, Administrator Oregon State Health Livision, and Mr. Ray Paris, Manager, Radiation Control Section.
The scope of the review and findings of the review were discussed. The NRC staff emphasized their concern over the restriction on out-of-State travel.
Ms. Cebbie explained she felt the situation was temporary, and she agreed it was detrimental to the program. The State's lack of trained technical staff was discussed. The Section has approval to add an additional technical position on July 1, 1989, and the importance of filling the position with a qualified professional person was stressed. The issue of competitive salaries was also discussed. The State was reminded of the repeat finding of incomplete and outdated administrative and technical procedures, and they agreed to place a high p-iority on revising and completing the necessary procedures, guides and checklists.
A close-out meeting with the RCP technical staff was conducted on April 21, 1989.
The State was represented by Ray Paris, Manager Radiation Control Section, and Martha Dibblee, Supervisor Radioactive Materials Licensing, and staff.
The review guideline questions and the State's responses were discussed in detail.
In addition, copies of the results of the licensee and complianca casework reviews were provided to the staff for reference.
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _