ML19256E718
| ML19256E718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/15/1979 |
| From: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Pingree D FLORIDA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911150057 | |
| Download: ML19256E718 (4) | |
Text
AW-
.,e m,hg
- kjus-UNI 1 ED STATES yI g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 g.
j
%,...../
OCT 151979 ' %
4-1.
D
- v. L,'
Mr. David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health
- and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Mr. Pingree:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Ashley held with Mr. Alvin Taylor, Deputy Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and members of his staff on September 21, 1979, concerning the results of a special foll,ow-up review of the Florida radiation control program.
-This follow-up review was conducted during the week of September 17-21, 1979, and was limited to those areas that were discussed in our March 20, 1979 letter to you and Ulray Clark following our regular annual review of the Florida radiation control program. These areas were:
staffing level; salaries; overdue inspections of licenses; reclassification package; orga'ni-zation structure; license fees; the quality of inspections and inspection reports; and the State's inspection priority system.
.The purpose of this follow-up review was to determine the direction Florida is taking in supporting a program for the regulatory control of agreement material and adequate protection of the public health and, safety and the current status of the State's program.
Based upon the information obtained by our
- reviewer, I must tell you that our staff cannot conclude that the Florida program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the Commission's program. This conclusion is based upon the following facts:
Overdue Insnections and Inspection P_riority System - Two-thirds of the State's 790 radioactive material licenses or S31 licenses are overdue for inspection based on the State's inspection priority system. This level of overdue inspections remains unchanged. We do not foresee any significant improvement in this area without a substantial increase in the compliance staf f level. One broad license has not been inspected for nine years and three others have not been inspected in the last five to six years. Accord-ing to the State's inspection priority system, these particular licenses are supposed to be inspected every one to two years. These licenses require the State's immediate attention.
1336 348 057 7911150
Mr. David H. Pingree.
. The inspection priority system was revised on June 1,1979, but it does not appear that the revised system will alleviate the staf f's scheduled workload.
The current priority system is commendable but an adequate staffing level of inspectors is needed to fulfill its scheduled requirements.
' Quality of Inspections and Inspection Reports - A review of selected com-pliance files shows that inspectors are missing or not adequately covering areas important to health and safety, One such file of particular signifi-cance is Scott Luminous, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida, License No. 863-1.
A complete inspection of this licensed program, which authorizes the paint-ing of clock hands and dials with radioactive luminous paint, was conducted on July 10, 1979.
The most significant deficiencies noted during the review of that inspection
_ file are listed below:
' 1.
The license includes authorization for the possession of promethium-147 microspheres in luminous paint to be used for mixing with adhesive for application on clock dials, clock,. hands, and other instrument dials and hands. The report states the promethium-147 is purchased as. microspheres and the licensee makes his own radio luminous paint. This should have been a violation for possession of an unauthorized physical or chemical fonn and unauthorized use of radioactive material.
2.
The inspection report makes no mention of the licensge's
, bio-assay program to comply with License Condition 14 A.
q
~
3.
The inspection report makes no mention of the licensee's methods for controlling or monitoring liquid and air effluents to unrestricted areas.
4.
An enforcement let'er dispatched to the licensee on July 13, 1979, did not specify the regulatory requirements relating to the items of noncompliance noted in the letter. Al so,
the licensee was not requested to respond to this letter as to his actions to correct the items and prevent reoccurrence.
A review of this and other selected compliance files shows the following deficiencies in most of the files:
1.
No mention of previous inspection results.
2.
No mention of the requirements of Part 10 of 10 D-56, F.A.C.,
" Notices, Instructi.ons and Reports to Workers:
Inspections."
1.336 349
-m - --
.,... ~ -...,. - - -
. ~., -
~
Mr. David H. Pingree.
3.
Items of noncompliance or license deficiencies referenced
~
in inspection reports were treated as recommendations or not mentioned at all in correspondence to licensees.
Licensees are not required to respond to correspondence _
resulting from inspections.
- We believe closer supervision of inspectors is needed to assure that all necessary areas of a licensee's program is covered in each inspec-tion. More in-depth supervisory review of inspection reports and resulting correspondence is also needed to assure proper documen;ation of the results of inspections and enforcement actions to which licensee's are required to take corrective actions.
Staffing Level and Organizational Structure - There have been no essential
, changes or indicated improvement in the staff level for regulating agree-ment materials. The approved organizational structure for the Inspection and Compliance Section of Radiological Health Services shows nine vacant professional positions. The reviewer was told that " Vacant" means that no funds have been allotted for the positions. At the present time there are only 2.5 person years of actual effort devoted to the inspection of' 790 radioactive material licenses according to the Florida staff.
Reclassification Package and Salaries - The reclassification package, designed to upgrade the program's professional positions and salaries, was approved
, by DHRS and submitted to the Department of Administration for final action on July 17, 1979. We believe the expeditious implementation of this package woul,d help retain present staff and aid in recruiting oth'(rs.
'~'
We believe it imperative that the Florida program for the regulatory control of agreement material receive positive support in both funding and staffing from all levels of State government. This is necessary for Florida to adequately protect the public health and safety, which includes licensee workers, and to be compatible with similar programs of the NRC and other Agreement States.
License Fees - The additional monie's generated by the radioactive material license fees is not being used to increase the staff of the inspection force as indicated in your April 12,
..,3 letter. Our reviewer was told that the expected $80,000 per year from license fees is earmarked for one person in each of the following positions:
1.
Transportation 2.
Radioactive material licensing
}330 3s0 3.
Administrative Assistant 4.
Fiscal Assistant O
e
.e..
maq=
-e
---w
. - %,m y om,
e.---.p,,qamemp=
gy3
a Mr. David H. Pingree
- We note that the radioactive material licensing position was a filled and active position prior to the advent of license fees.
Because of these deficiencies, we see the necessity for taking prompt remedial action. We would like to know what plan the State has for restoring the program to a status where it can be judged adequate to protect the public health and safety, and the time frame for implementa-tion of the plan. We would like to receive such a plan by October 31, 1979. Since the meeting on September 21, Mr. Ulray Clark has infomed our office that action is underway to obtain additional staff. We hope that your plan will contain details on these efforts.
We are prepared to meet with you to discuss our findings and provide advice and assistance in reaching the goal we share of assuring the protection of the public health and safety.
I appreciate the cooperation and assistance extended to Mr. Ashley by Mr. Clark and his staff during this review.
I am enclosing an additional copy of this letter for your public cacument roc.n or otherwise be made available..for public review.
,I r Robert G. Ryan, Dir,pctor Office of State Programs OcWm@M.'i!
Enclosure:
Copy of letter a
cc: Alvin Taylor Oliver Boorde Ulray Clark State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room 1336 351 e
l W
_