ML20247Q917
| ML20247Q917 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/22/1989 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Hartnett T NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909290121 | |
| Download: ML20247Q917 (9) | |
Text
,
. go orc...
J o
UNITED STATES
.:, E ^ ' > f[,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
s.
- e wAssiNcTon. o. c. 20sss 6;
.o September 22, 1989 Mr. Thomas F. Hartnett Commissioner of Labor New York State Department of Labor State Office Building Campus Albany, New York 12240
Dear Mr. Hartnett:
This is to confinn the discussion Mr. John McGrath held with Deputy Commissioner O'Connell on May 19, 1989 following our review and evaluation of the Department's radiation control program.
As a result of our review of the Department's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
-the Department, the staff determined the Department's program for the regulation of agreement materials at the time of the review to be adequate to protect the public health and safety. The State's program was also compatible with the Comission's program, but as of July 16, 1989 this finding is no longer valid. The Department has failed to initiate rulemaking to adopt changes to the Department's regulations to medntain compatibility. Agreement States have 3 years to adopt such changes following NRC adoption. On July 16, 1986, rule changes relating to industrial radiography radiation safety were adopted by NRC and must be adopted by the Agreement States. The matter of maintaining compatible regulations was the subject of a recent NRC meeting with the New York radiation control program directors. The Department must take prompt action to adopt the radiography rule change as well as initiate other rulemaking that will also be necessary for compatibility.
During our previous review, we noted that the Department would need to supplement resources to address the additional workload anticipated as a result of the Department's responsibilities under the State's low-level radioactive waste legislation. We understand that the Radiological Health Unit has submitted a request for an additional staff position, but no final action has yet been taken. We support this request and encourage the State to expedite action on this request. The States low-level waste siting activities are moving forward rapidly. The Department of Labor will have regulatory responsibility for health and safety at the site and will be licensing the operator of the site.
It is important for the Department to have adequate staff resources to carry out this important responsibility and to properly coordinate with other State agencies having responsibility.
NRC staff is presently preparing additional guidance for Agreement State staffing in this area. The Department, however, should not wait until it is approved, but should begin now to carefully monitor staff needs in this a rea. As the litersing proceeds and the site becomes operational. additional staff resources may likely be needed to assure adequate regulatory oversight.
8909290121 890922 PDR STPRG ESGNY t
PDC g
\\
Thomas F. Hartnett 2
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 1. contains a sumary of the staff's assessments and comments that were developed from the indicators used for review of the program.
The comments were discussed with Dr. Bradley and his staff during our exit meeting with him. Dr. Bradley was advised at the time that a response to these findings would be requested by this office and you may wish to have Dr. Bradley address the Enclosure 2 comments and recommendations. We are enclosing a second copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available.for public view.
As we discussed, it is important for the Department to initiate action quickly to update its regulations and increase its staff in response to the increased responsibilities for regulating the low-level waste disposal site.
I would appreciate a timely response from you indicating the steps being taken to address these issues.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to our representative during the review.
I am looking forward to your comnents regarding the status of the regulations and the staffing requests along with the responses to our recommendations from Dr. Bradley.
Sincerely, criginal signed by Carlton Kammerer Carlton Kammerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page bcc:
Distribution:
_1 Chairman Carr SA RF
,DCDs(SP011 Commissioner Roberts Dir RF JMcGrath, RI Commissioner Rogers HDenton EDO RF Commissioner Curtiss CKamerer MMiller, RI VMiller New York Labor File l#> W AMYw Y
, n n n Cv b
f 1SLITP
.G
- GPA
- EDOP J._ _ _ _. ".. :..:...~}...:.....
OFC :RI:SAO RI:DRA~
- RI:RA
- SLIT
... _ :. _ _....K....# :
NAME :JMcGrath:ms :TMartin
- WRussell
- VMil r
,, rer: Sc artz:HDe on :JTaylor 3..____.:.. _........:.........___:________.......
DATE :8/JS /E9
- 8/ AS /89 :8/FS/89 :8/A
/89
- 8/y/89fif/I/89:8/,/89:g/ ( /89
\\V 0FFICIAL RECOR) COPY
.h
m m...
..'..'S.'
l Thomas:F. Hartnett 3-cc w/encls:-
J.. Taylor,- Acting Executive Director for Operations, NRC W. T. Russell, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I M. Knapp, Director, DRSS, Region I Dr. F. J. Bradley, Principal Radiophysicist, Radiological Health Unit
-State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room
' State Public Document Room
e
^
ENCLOSURE 1 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 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 two categories.
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 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 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 comment made.
If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adeouate 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 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 and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document poom.
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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
~
ic ENCLOSURE 2
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW AND COMMENTS NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM i'
FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 27,1987 TO MAY 19,1989 j
Scope of Review This program review was conducted in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreenent State Programs published in the Federal
- Register on June 4,1987, and the internal procedures established by the l
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, State Agreements Progran. The Department's program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators i
provided in the Guidelines. The review included discussions with program l
management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license and compliance i
files, the evaluation of the Departnent's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review, and a field i
accompaniment of a Departnent inspector.
The 25th regulatory program review meeting with the Department was held j
during the period March 27-31, 1989 in Brooklyn, New York. The Department was represented by Dr. F. J. Bradley, Prin:ipal Radiophysicist. A review of selected license, compliance and incident files was conducted by John McGrath, j
Region I, during the period March 27-31, 1989. Ms. B. J. Holt, Region III, i
^
assisted during this period. A field accompaniment of a Department inspector at the NRD, Inc. facility was conducted on May 3-5 by Donald MacKenzie. SLITP.
i A preliminary closeout meeting with Deputy Commissioner O'Connell was held on March 30. A final closeout meeting was held with Deputy Commissioner O'Connell on May 19.
Conclusion l
At the time of the review, the New York State Department of Labor program for the control of agreement materials was found to be adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the programs of the NRC.
Status of Program Related to Previous NRC Findings Comments and recommendations from NRC's previous review were sent to the State in a letter dated May 26, 1987.
All of these comments were satisfactorily resolved with the exception of comments on staffing, inspection backlog, administrative procedures and inspection reports.
As noted previously, the Department has not increased staff resources needed j
to carry out its responsibilities under the State's low-level radioactive waste legislation. This issue is being readdressed in the cover letter for j
this report.
J I
I
2 The program's inspection backlog has been reduced but progress has been slow.
The Department, however, has a specific plan to address this backlog within the next six months Priority I overdue inspections have already been assigned to specific staff.
With regard to administrative procedures, automatic data processing is being utilized more, but there are problems needing correction. As an example, the Department required three months to produce data on the inspection backlog.
This area requires continuing management attention.
Sone improvements have been made in the documentation of violations in the Department's formal Notice of Inspection Findings, however, documentation in the reports still needs to be improved.
Program management should closely monitor the staff's efforts to improve in this area.
Current Review Comments and Recommendations All 29 program indicators were reviewed and the Department fully satisfies 24 of these indicators. Specific comments and recommendations for the remaining five indicators are as follows:
1.
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I indicator. The following comment and recommendation concerns an issue which, while not considered of major significance at the time of the review, will become of major significance as explained below.
Comment The Department's radiation control regulations were last updated in 1985.
Since that time, there have been changes to NRC regulations which the State must adopt to maintain compatibility. These changes include an update to radiography requirements, bankruptcy notification provisions and well-logging requirements. The NRC radiography rule change became effective July 16, 1986 and must be adopted by the Agreement States within three years, i.e., no later than July 16, 1989. The implementation of these requirements through licensing, while an acceptable procedure during the three year interim period, must be j
in place as a rule after that period.
Recommendation We recommend that the State initiate the process of modifying its regulations to adopt these changes. We would like to receive a schedule for adoption of the changes.
i 6.
4 3
II. PERSONNEL Staffing Level is a Category II indicator.
Comment Under the terms of the State's low-level radioactive waste legislation, the Department of Labor retains its responsibility for licensing low-level waste disposal or storage facilities. We believe that the current staffing level is not sufficient to handle the significant increase in workload that will result when the Department receives a license application for a low-level waste disposal facility. The licensing of a new low-level waste disposal facility will be a much more complex action now than it was when the Department licensed the former West Valley site. Additional effort will be needed to assure proper coordination with the State Department of Environmental Conservation which will share radiation protection regulatory responsibility for the site.
Recommendation We support the Radiological Health Unit's request for an additional staff position for low-level radioactive waste disposal activities and we encourage the Department to expedite this request. This staff increase is necessary for the Department to carry out its regulatory responsibilities to protect public health and safety. The Unit should carefully monitor staff needs as the licensing of the disposal site proceeds.
III. LICENSING Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I indicator. The following comment and recommendation concerns an issue which we do not consider of major significance.
I Comment The NRC and Agreement States require certain large licensees to submit contingency plans for the handling of facility emergencies with the potential for off-site releases of radioactive material.
At present, there are four Department licensees who are subject to this requirement.
All four have prepared the required plans and have submitted them to the Department for review, and pending Department approval, have them in place. We understand that the New York Committee on licensing will review this matter with respect to coordination between State agencies i
I having responsibility to respond to such emergencies.
, e 9
i 4
Recommendation The Department needs +.o complete its review and also clarify the roles of the other State regulatory agencies affected by the plans and assure proper coordination with those agencies. Priority should be given to completing these reviews and we would appreciate receiving a schedule for when the Department will accomplish this.
IV. COMPLIANCE A.
Status of Inspection Program is a Category I indicator. The following comment and recommendation concerns an issue which we do not consider of major significance at this time.
Ccmment Although the inspection backlog is being reduced, progress is slow.
At the time of the review, there were seven Priority I licenses overdue for inspection by a period greater than one year.
In addition, there were 57 Priority II and 29 Priority III licenses overdue for inspection.
Recommendation We encourage the Radiological Health Unit to follow through with its plan to eliminate the Priority I backlog within six mcnths and to reduce the Priority II and III backlogs by 50% in the same period. We plan to review the status of the Department's pian in six months.
B.
Inspection Reports is a Category II indicator.
Comment During our previous review, we noted that inspection reports did not always address all information necessary for a complete inspection.
During this review, similar problems were again noted. For example, inspection forms were not always completely filled out, manufacturer quality assurance programs were not addressed and some citations were not well documented.
Recommendation We recommend that program management take a more active role in assuring that inspection reports provide adeqbate documentation of inspection findinge.
~
5 Summary Discussion with State Representatives Summary meetings.to present the results of the regulatory program review were held with Deputy Connissioner Geo ge E. O'Connell, on March 30 and May 19, 1989.. Dr.. Francis J. Bradley, Principal Radiophysicist, Radiological Health Unit, and Robert Ratajak, Deputy Director, Division of Safety and Health, were also present. The March 30 meeting was a preliminary closecut since the Department had not yet responded to all of the questions concerning the program and the inspection accompaniment at NRD, Inc. had not yet been performed. The final closecut meeting was conducted on May 19.
--________ _ ___-___ _ - - _ _ -