ML20247C978
| ML20247C978 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/31/1989 |
| From: | Miller V NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245H601 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-157 NUDOCS 8905250107 | |
| Download: ML20247C978 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, UNITED STATES !? T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20656 f p JAN 311989 Ref: SA/JOL MEMORANDUM FOR: Malcolm R. Knapp, Director . Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS FROM:-
- Vandy L. Miller, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program State, local and Indian Tribe Programs
SUBJECT:
STATE OF. WASHINGTON REQUESTS The Washington radiation control program was reviewed in October,1988. A part of our comments made to the State as a result of the review concerned the State's uranium mill regulatory program (enclosure 1). Washington's response to our coments contained two requests related to the Western-Nuclear Sherwood mill (enclosure 2). This facility is scheduled to be turned over to the Spokane Tribe of Indians and consequently regulatory jurisdiction will be transferred from the State to.the NRC' This transfer has been the subject of coordination between the State,-SLITP ano URFO.- Washington's requests concern two matters. First, the State wishes to enter into a contract with NRC to allow the State to continue its ~ environmental monitoring activities at the mill. Secondly, the State is concerned over the issue of a surety bond to cover the cost of closure of the facility and would appreciate information concerning how this -will be handled by NRC. We appreciate your assistance. The staff contact is Joel Lubenau, X20819. A reply by March 1, 1989 would be appreciated.
Enclosures:
As stated 1 8905250107 890517 I PDR FOIA -( BLUMENF89-157 PDR h
l' ' OAll CF DoCUMiht Daf t etctivte. no '8 9408 ' 1/31/89 2/2 for ticket LLWM89-010V J 'ar4 t V Miller Ltm MLMO REPORT OfMER OnaG cc OTHgm gg D'"^*S*'"' actio= =<cusan, O-concunnt=cs O '(13IC6Ir.,k. Xtepp XX18X81 2/28/69 mo ac tiom mictssan, O COMME =1 O ev ritecoot rost ov eics . ctassi.. nec No Af ilRRE D TO Daft mEcElvic tY - Dati pt sc3er f s04 iMust te Un<tawledi Lohaus 2/2 STATE OF WA5lt!NGTON REQUESTS'
- /-
./ ( ENCtQsupts l I / 3 ' k. Jasa 4 AL:'sk Ghul Ddi a-ra[/ / ~ - t Manas. n n.. aj.y. ~ /- ' D"",",",c ms - o s evettaa neoutatony coMuisseow e. s 61 i i sL. f 9 e t
- g UNITED STATE 8
/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . [F.C y, .-{ { WASHINoTON D.C.20688 y NOV 25 98' Acting Ofrector G E ': 2 A9:07 Mr. Robert R. Rolfs DivisionofHealthfM/ SET-26) Department of Social and Health Services 1112 South Quince Street Olympia, Washington 98504
Dear Mr. Rolfs:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack Hornor held with you and your staff on October 28, 1988, following our review of the State's radiation control program. As a result of our review of the Agency's program and the routine exchange of infonnation between the NRC and the State, we believe that the State's program for regulating agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the Commission'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 Western Nuclear, Inc. prior to January 1989. Because the facility is located within the Spokane Reservation the jurisdiction of the facility will dange from the State of Washington to the USNRC after 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 DOE under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act. 00E has } notified Dawn Mining Company and the State that they have again detennined I that the site is not eligible for consideration for clean-up under Title I ofPublicLaw(PL)95-604. As we understand it Dawn Mining Company has presented three possible reclamation options, and the State is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be presented during the public hearing on the renewal of the Dawn license in December 1988. We ask that this office be hept current as to the progress of the reclamation and renewal. In our last review we offered a comment and recommenda' tion 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 reterials incidents. In this review we found this recommendation has not been implemented. In your response to this repeat comment, we would appreciate receiving a schedule for implementing this recommendation. contains comments and recommendations regarding the technical and administrative aspects of the review. We would appreciate your responding to our.coments. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing agreement state programs. ~ 9 9 m 1 J m n,
- ( 4 f ft) ')O a
'a v ~ 2 NOV 3 51989 In accordance with NRC practice I am also enclosing a second copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Rooms or otherwise to be made available for public review. I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended the NRC staff during the review. Sincerely. Original Signed by Carlton Kammerer Carlton Kamerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
as stated cc w/ enclosures: V. Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC John 8. Martin, Regional Administrator, MRC T. R. Strong, Chief Office of Radiation Protection State Public Document-Room NRC Public Document Room Distribution: Chairman Lando Zech, Jr. Commissioner Thomas Roberts Commissioner Kenneth Rogers l Commissioner Kenneth Carr Commissioner James Curtiss Harold Denton, Director, GPA Carlton Kamerer Director, GPA/SLITP Ron Hauber, Deputy Director, GPA/SLITP Yandy Miller, Asst. Director, GPA/SLITP State File GPA/SL;TP Document Control besk SP01 Jack Hornor, RSAR, RV EDO r/f m. TEQUEST COPY, YESREQUEST COPY, REQUEST COPY, REQUEST YES / NO / N0 YES / NO YES t r RScarra JMartin 11/18/88 11//f/88 11/ff/88 I/ REQUMT COPY, KQIPsT COPY, YES SEND TO PRD YES 4/r-N0 . MS / NO / NO ] CKantfia/er 11/ /88
Coments and Recommendations on Technical and Administrative Aspects of the Washington Radiation Control Program I. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION A. Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category I Indicator. The following coment and recommendation is considered to be not of major significance at this time. Coment The RCP should have a written emergency plan specifically for response to incidents involving radioactive materials. The plan should be reviewed annually for adequacy and periodic drills should be performed 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 response. ' The significance of this finding is mitigated because the State has responded adequately to materials incidents in the past; however, this is .a repeat finding. Recommendation We again recomend revision of. the emergency response plan to address radioactive materials, including transportation and waste. Procedures should be written to clearly identify staff resources and to' define the responsibilities of all sections 7nd agencies involved in the plan. All staff members .ould be trained in these revised plans and procedures. B. Laboratory Support is a Category II Indicator. The following coment with our recommendation is made. Comment The RCP should have the laboratory support capability in-house, or readily available through established procedures, to conduct bioassays, analyze environmental samples, analyze samples collected by inspectors, etc., on a priority established by the RCP. In Washington, the laboratory support for the Office of Radiation Protection (ORP) is furnished by another office in the Division of Health, the Environmental Radiation Laboratory (ERL), which is located in Seattle. We found that RCP has made a L >ractice of not taking swipes for the detection of low energy > eta emitters during compliance inspections because of disagreements between the ORP and the ERL over costs and the difficulty of obtaining timely results from ERL.
Recommendation 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 Olyinpfa. This would supplement ERL capability for both routine and emergency inspections. II. COMPLIANCE A. Inspection Procedures is a Category !! Indicator. The following comments with our recommendations 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 management, and issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety problems. The State's inspection procedures are outdated and do not edequately cover such important items as observation of operations, exit meetings with management and follow-up and close out of previous items of noncompliance. We feel the comments below relate directly to the lack of adequate written inspection procedures. Recommendation 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 1 Licensee management must be infonned of problems found by inspectors in their safety programs at the end of an inspection. Among other things, this enables licensee management to promptly initiate corrective measures. In several cases reviewed, the inspector did not hold an exit interview with management, although there were significant or multiple items of noncompliance. Recommendation 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 managenert could be scheduled at a time convenient for both parties, or in extenuating circumstances, the interview could be conducted by telephone.
m ,j ~ 3 3.' Coment ~ In some inspection reports, the items of noncompliance, areas of ~ concern and recommendations were not clearly defined, or the. disposition of previous. items of noncompliance were not indicated.' Recommendation We recomend the procedures be revised ensure the exit interviews o and inspection fonns clearly differentiate between items of-noncompliance and recommendations. We also recomend changes in the procedures to improve the follow through and close-out of previous items' of noncompliance.
- 4. Coment It is the State's policy to conduct annual field inspections for-all industrial radiographer. 'However, during this review period, of the thirty-one inspections perfonned, only three included field inspections.
Recommendation NRC guidance recommends annual field examinations be performed on twenty-five percent of the industrial radiographer, including reciprocity inspections. We suggest the State increase their perfonnance of field inspections to at least that level. III. ' LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT A. Administrative Procedures is a Category !! Indicator. The following coment'and recommendation is made. Coment The State has been relying on NRC procedures, supplemented with their own Policy Memorandums, to administer the hw-level waste program. Inconsistencies found in regulatory ud enforcement practices indicate the need for written administrative and technical procedures. l Recommendation L We recomend the State develop and implement written procedures l-specific to the administration of the Washington low-level waste program. These procedures should be consistent with NRC guidance and procedures at'other cperating 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.
K B.. Staffing Level is a Category II Indicator. The following comment and recommendation is made. ' Coment 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. Recommendation We recomend the staffing be increased to the level indicated on the organization chart. C. Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following coment and reconsnendation is made. Coment ~1n some cases, we found the State is performing 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. Recommendation 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 requirements. O. Enforcement Procedures is a Category I Indicator. The following ccmments and reconsnendations are considered to be not of major significance at this time. Coment Enforcement actions against waste generators using the site are not always consistent. Recommendation We recomend written enforcement procedures with severity action levels be developed and implemented. \\ _______.._m.
o 5 1 Coment Reports required by the' licensee in the license conditions'have - not always been submitted'to the State at the time they become due. The.lteensee has not been cited, although some reports are.several months overdue. Recommendation We recomend 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 received. e e 0 e m-______.__
wp-4 vv)& kW ut a s>c w GPA/SLITP kkJ' 5e + MAH G M M C N 88DEC28 AHil:30 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES own. wanean semaes l December 19, 1988 l Carlton Kamerer, Director State, local and Indian Tribe Prograns Office of Governmental and Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Wrshington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Kammerer:
'Ibe purpose of my letter is to respond to findings nude during Mr. Jack Ilornor's compatibility review of Washington's radiation protection program. We are pleased that you have found our program to be both adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the radiation control program of the Nuclear Regulatory Otmnission. Although we have not been notified fomally by the tribe, we have learned that the Shermod Project uranitrn mill of Western Nuclear, Incorporated, has been given to the Spokane Tribe of Indians. 'Ibe original date for completion of the transfer was to be January 1, 1989. We do not believe that date is now achievable and anticipate that it will likely take most of the first calendar quarter of 1989 to canplete. We too are interested in assuring a smooth transfer of regulatory responsibility from my agency to yours. While the state of Washington will give up its regulatory responsi-bility for the mill, our interest in the environmental conditions at the facility will not be dindnished. Because your agency will operate a differect kind of environmental tronitoring program from the one traditionally operated by the state of Washington, it is ny intention to request the hbclear Regulatory Ctanission to enter into negotiations with the state of Washington to develop, contract or similar agrement which would allow the state to continue its environmental monitoring activities at the Sherwood mill as a contractor of the Nuclear Regulatory Otanission. A second issue of grave concern to us is the loss of the surety bond now held by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and paid for by Western Nuclear, Incorporated. The bond would provide funds for the closure al the facility. As the transfer of regulatory responsibility moves aheaa, we are very interested in continuing the protection provided by this bond. With regard to the Dawn Mining Company, we anticipate issuing the draft environmental impact statenent for closure of the millsite on January 1, 1 -W h&- v i
m v..? .,/ e Carlton Kanmerer, Director December 19,-1988, Page'2 e -1989.. A public bearing has been tentatively scheduled for February 14 and 15, 1989 in Spokane, Washington. We intend to continue to receive written conments until February 28, 1989, and issue the final EIS' as soon E thereafter as possible. 'lhe issue of emergency response to radiation' incidents has been a sensitive issue with us for some time. I appreciate your comments and fully understand that it is a repeat conment from your previous evaluations. I would prefer fully integrate our emergency response capability for to radioactive materials, fixed nuclear facilities, transportation incidents, and any other radiation related accidents. Primarily because of funding issues, I do not believe it will be possible to do this within a reasonable time. Nevertheless, in recognition of the significance of the issue, se will develop.an energency response. plan for the radioactive materials - portion of our responsibility and have that plan coupleted by Septenber 30, 1989. I have asked Terry Strong, 021ef of the Office of Radiation Protection, to respond to your couments and reemmendations in. enclosure 1 to your November 25, 1988 letter. Staff have told me of the close working relationship they have with your organization and that they appreciate the continuing assistance se receive, especially from Jack Hornor. His presence nakes the capatibility review process a positive experience for us. I look forward to your response to concern about both environmental monitoring and the surety requirements ny at the Western Nuclear project. Sincerely, CAROLE J. W i Acting Director Division of Health l l I l _.________________._m___ m .J -}}