ML20002C141
| ML20002C141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1980 |
| From: | Lubenau J NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Lacker D TEXAS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002C138 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101090335 | |
| Download: ML20002C141 (5) | |
Text
.
p us,
o
/.
O UNITED STATES
.8
',(
) y, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 NOV t 7 tc80 Mr. David K. Lacker, Director Division of Occupational Health and Rriiation Control 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756 Dear Mr. M This is to confirm the coments made to yourself and your staff at the conclusion of the recent, partial review of the Texas radiation control program. The review did not cover the regulatory program for uranium mills. This will be covered later this year in a separate review. We plan to offer our recommendations for adequacy and compatibility after the review is completed. As a result of the partial review conducted October 20-24, 1980, specific comments and recommendations were developed and are enclosed.
I would appreciate your review of them and receiving your comments on them.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to myself and Messrs. Ashley, Bassin and McGrath during the review.
I Sincerely, fh(
- R L_+(
Joel 0. Lubenau Aching Assistant Director for State Agreements Program Office of State Programs l
l
Enclosure:
l As stated cc: Dr. Robert Bernstein, w/ encl.
NRC Public Document Room, w/ encl.
State Public Document Room, w/ encl.
l F101090S36
^
I.
Management and Administration A.
Comment and Recommendation Procedures for handling documents in the Austin office relating to incidents may not be adequate. We found that copies of papers in the incident file were not kept in the license file. One solution is to place incident files involving licensees in the license folder.
If a " double folder" is used (as discussed in the review meeting) the incident materials can be placed directly into the folder in a separate section.
B.
Coment and Recomendation We believe the radiation control program would benefit from a review of its systems for infonnation storage and retrieval and its internal organization. Such a review may be especially timely now in view of the contemplated rapid increases in staff and program responsibilities expected in the next 2-3 years. With respect to information systems, NRC is utilizing a computerized information storage and retrieval system for its central files.
If you desire further information, please let me know.
II. Personnel A.
Coment and Recommendation We recommend that all licensing and compliance staff (who are not specializing in a specific area) attend the industrial radiography and nuclear medicine safety courses and the compliance staff members attend the inspection procedures course. NRC will fund travel and per diem for qualified accepted candidates.
III. Licensing A.
Comment and Recommendation At the present time, the State is issuing licenses for 3-year periods, however, licenses are being renewed in their entirety (including the submittal of complete support information by the licensee) at 10-year: intervals. We strongly recomend that I
licensees be required to resubmit supporting information at l
5-year intervals. Licenses should be issued for a corresponding period. In addition, we do not feel that it is necessary for the State to reissue licenses after 5 amendments.
- -** w 5 6
. B.
Comment and Recormendation l
It would appear that better coordination between the licensing and compliance staff is needed. As an example, subsequent to the most recent inspection of Gammatron, Inc., the inspector indicated that the licensee's operating and emergency procedures were minimal and should be reviewed in detail. This was brought to the attention of the licensing staff on August 14, 1980.
However, on August 21 the State extended the expiration date to January 31, 1982 without taking any action regarding the licensees procedures.
C.
Comment and Recommendation At present, the State does not acknowledge receipt of applications for licenses or amendments. With the present backlog, it could be some time before a response to a request is dispatched.
In any case, we feel that acknowledgements should be a standard part of the State's licensing process.
D.
Conment and Recommendation Our review of licensing actions taken by the State revealed a number of areas where improvements can be made.
1.
We strongly recommend that the standard Texas tie-down condition be amended to delete the phrase "...and all correspondence amending the application which results in an amendment to the license."
2.
It was noted that the State is still accepting letters regarding licensing actions from third parties, typically consultants. Letters from consultants should only be accepted in cases where licensee management, e.g., hospital administrator, have provided written authorization for the consultant to speak for the licensee.
3.
In general, we noted a reluctance on the part of the licensing staff to challenge certain statements by appli-cants.
For example:
a.
Scaled source and device manufacturers did not always submit complete information for evaluation of the source or device.
b.
One broad medical licensee requested three specific exemptions from regulatory requirements without providing adequate justification for the exemptions.
wy-9 7
e-.---g
-s,
,,w<t.
y w
w--
- -, --,--m y-y 7-
,e-
+
,m-g-
w
I
. c.
A teletherapy service licensee did not provide evidence of experience on all units he wished to service nor did he provide evidence that he had drawings of all the units to be serviced.
d.
In one case, 1 redical license was issued before the applicant responded to a deficiency letter.
e.
Industrial radiography licensees in many cases did not provide adequate survey procedures, training program, or internal inspection program.
The above comments are some of the comments which were provided to your staff during our review. At a later date we will be providing you a copy of our file reviews in which these and addi-tional comments will be discussed in detail. We feel tnat the evidence is strong that the licensing program needs to be improved.
We believe this area should receive your close attention.
IV. Compliance 1.
Comment and Recommendation We note that on-site investigations are normally made for those reported cases which appear significant. However, one case involving the overexposure of a 19 year old radiographer's assistant did not receive appropriate attention by the staff. We recommend all such cases be investigated on a priority basis.
2.
Comment and Recommendation Draft written escalated enforcement procedures have been completed and are currently being reviewed by the agency's legal staff. We urge this review be expedited and that the written procedures be explained and issued to all appropriate State personnel.
3.
Comment and Recommendation Licensee responses to enforcement letters were found to be adequately reviewed and followed up, as necessary, in most cases.
However, in one case in which the agency's independent TLD measurements showed excessive radiation levels in an unrestricted area, the licensee responded that he was " planning to build a shielding structure" to reduce these radiation levels. This response was accepted by the staff. We recommend that licensees be advised that more definitive temporary actions are needed in the interim prior to permanent corrective actions.
~
4.
Comment and Recommendation We note that Texas is doing more unannounced inspections. At the present time, about 20% of all inspections are unannounced. We recommend as many inspections as possible be unannounced, particularly those of major licenses where daily health and safety problems may exist.
y n
rg sr-
-4 5.
Comment and Recommendation We understand that the Compliance Handbook and inspection report forms are being revised. We recommend this effort be completed as soon as possible.
In regard to these revisions we offer the following suggestions.
a.
Agency policy regarding announced vs. unannounced inspections should be spelled out and documented.
b.
Specific guidance be given to inspectors on various regula-tory and safety-related matters. One example of this was noted in an inspection report in which a thyroid burden of greater than 0.14 uc was not considered an item of non-compliance.
In his inspection report, the inspector noted i
that specific requirements are needed in these matters.
We suggest you refer to NRC's Reg. Guide 8.20, issued for comment in April 1978, for information on exposures to iodine.
j c.
Agency policy on interviewing workers should be spelled out and all persons interviewed be identified in reports.
d.
Inspection reports should provide adequate space for documenting previous items of compliance and the inspector's findings regarding corrective action by the licensee. This information is not being documented in all cases.
e.
Pre-printed inspection report forms should not be used for broad or other complex license inspections.
For those inspections a structured narrative report, with specified highlighted areas of inspection, should be used.
6.
Comment a,nd Recommendation We understand survey instruments are calibrated on a 6 month frequency. We recommend that instruments used for independent measurements during inspections be calibrated at frequencies no greater than that required of licensees.
For examole, instru-ments used for surveys during inspections of industrial radiog-rapher licensees should be calibrated on a 3 month frequency.
C_cpent and Reconsnendation 7.
o We believe your twice-a-month staff meetings is an excellent method of keeping the staff up to date on current developments and receiving feedback from the staff on their experiences in the field. We reccmmend that a record be made of matters discussed at these meetings and names of staff in attendance.
g-..
9m
-, =
y
.-v4
,