ML20012D739
| ML20012D739 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/20/1990 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Luna J TENNESSEE, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003280310 | |
| Download: ML20012D739 (16) | |
Text
. _ _
e aseg.
4
.k UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION a
S
'f W ASHINGION, D. C. 20$$$
March 20, 1990
,,g.
Mr. J. W. Luna, Commissioner Department of Health and Environment 344 Cordell Hull Building Nashville, TN 37203
Dear Mr. Luna:
This will confirm the discussion Richard L. Woodruff, NRC State Agreements Officer, held on December 15, 1989 with Wayne K. Scharber, Kenneth W. Bunting and Michael H. Mobley following our review and evaluation of the State's Radiation Control Program.
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange ofinformationbetweentheNuclearRegulatoryCommission(NRC)andthe State of Tennessee, the staff is unable to make a finding of adequacy and compatibility at this time. Significant problems were found in two Category I Indicators. These and other comments and recommendations are addressed below.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I Indicator. For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but no later than three years. (1)gulations that are needed to maintain compatibility are Re as follows:
" Transportation Regulations Com 6, 1983; (2)patibility with IAEA,"
10 CFR Part 71, effective September
" Elimination of ExemptionforGlassEnamelandGlassEnamelFrit,"10CFR40.13(c)(2),
effective September 11, 1984; (3) " Medical Records and Reports of Misadministrations," 10 CFR 35.33, effective April 1,1987; and (4) " Requirements for Well Logging," 10 CFR Part 39, effective i
July 13, 1987. These rules were identified in a letter to the State dated April 15, 1988 following our previous routine review, and again following a visit with you and our subsequent letter of March 21, 1989.
Copies of our letter of March 21, 1989 and the attachments are provided as Enclosure 1.
Program staff have drafted proposed amendments for each rule required for compatibility, and some of the rules were adopted; i
however, your staff continues to encounter difficulties in moving the proposed amendments through the administrative process. We have concerns about the ability of the Department to effect timely rule changes that are needed for compatibility. We recommend that the Department review its.rulemaking procedure with a view towards streamlining the procedures i
where possible eliminating unnecessary delays.
Status of the Inspection Program is a Category I Indicator. The State has 137 licenses that are overdue for inspection representing 25 percent of the total specific licenses issued. Of the total overdue, 36 have inspection priorities I thru IV and the remaining (101) are priority V licenses. Of the 36 (priority I-IV) overdue, 2 are overdue by more than 50 percent of their initial inspection frequency. The State cannot 9003280310 900320 PDR STPRG ESGTN PDC
%\\
i J. W. Luna 2
MAR 1b w locate one priority IV licensee that it overdue for initial inspection by 27 months.
In addition, program management has verbally suspended all routine material ifcense inspections exceat for " fee category 9" licenses until the x-ray inspections duo for 19891 ave been completed. We recomend that the State re-evaluate their inspection policies and develop a plaii to eliminate the inspection backlog. The plan should include goals and milestones for each regional office and monthly written reports to program management that sumarizes by region, the inspections perforned, status of enforcement actions, and the status of the 1
inspection backlog by priority.
Staffing Level is a Category 11 Indicator. The program has one technical position vacancy in the Licensing Section which is having a detrimental affect on the licensing actions that are needed for an ef fective reculatory program. The program has 537 licenses, of which 18 licenses are considered to be major licenses, requiring highly trained and i
experienced technical license reviewers. We noted that a significant j
backlog has developed in the Licensing Section, in addition to the e
inspection backlog addressed above. We understand that a hiring freeze has been imposed statewide except for critical positions. We believe that this technical position vacancy is critical to the program, and we recorrnend that the position be filled as soon as possible.
Staff Continuity is a Categcry II Indicatnr. The Program has loi,t seven trained, experienced, technical staff met:bers since the last review.
This represents approximately 30 percent of the technical staff. One senior license reviewer retired, one license reviewer returned to graduate school, one person got married, and four persons reportedly left the prcgram for higher salaries.
Based upon information gathered during our reviews of other Agreement State Programs, it appears that your Environmental Specialist classifications do not compare favorably with the " Health Physics" type classifications found in the industry and other Agreement States.
In general, the Tennessee salary ranges for the technical staff are below those salary rances found in other southeastern States. The starting salary is more than 34,000 below the average starting salary in all Region 11 States, and the highest salary is more than $5,000 below the average highest salaries of all Region 11 States.
This information was provided to Mr. Mobley during the review, and also provided as Enclosure 2.
We recommend that the job classifications and i
respective salary ranges be reviewed and upgraded as needed to provide better staff continuity. contains a sumary of the staff assessments and coments that were developed from the other indicators used for review of the program.
Those coments were discussed with Mr. Mobley and his staff during our exit meeting with him. Mr. Mobley was advised at the time that a response to the above findings and the Enclosure 3 comments and recommendations would be requested by this office.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is included as Enclosure 4 A copy of this letter and the
b w
MAR 2 01990 J. Y. Luna 3
enclosures are provided for placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public information.
J As we discussed, it is important for the Department to initiate prompt actions to update your Radiation Control Program regulations, and to reduce the inspection and licensing backlogs.
I also urge that high priority be given to assure that sufficient staff is available for the program.
)
I appreciate the courtesy and coo 9eration extended by your staff to our representatives during the revie.l.
I am looking foward to your cuiments regarding regulation, status of the inspections program, staffing level, 7,taff continuity, and your staff rasponses to the Enclosure 3 reconrnendations.
Sincerely, i
original s%ned by Carlton Kammerer Carlton Kamerer, Director State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
1.
Letter dated March 21, 1989 2.
Salary Schedule 3.
Sumary of Assessments and Comments
- 4.. Application of NRC Guidelines cc w/encis:
Distribution J. Taylor, Executive Director SA RE'oodruf f, RII for 0)erations, NRC Dir RF RTrojanowski, RII S. D. Eaneter, Regional Administrator, HRD RF Region II SDroggitis M. Mobley, Direct.r, Division of SSchwartz l
Radiologital Hedith VMilIe-NRC Public Document Room Tent.essee State file l
State Public Document Room
-DC0"(SP01')
State Liaison Officer EDO RF bcc: Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Comissioner Rogers L
Commissioner Curtiss l
Comissioner Remick
- See previous cencurrence.
RII:SAR RII:DRSS RII:RA SP:S :AD RWoodruff:mb JStohr SEbneter VMil er 01/24/90*
01/25/90*
0/29/90*
02/2 90*
SP:D GPA:
'HD lor 02/ /90 0/ /90 0)/
P0 p /90
g- ---- -- - -
NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMOON 4
maenneetow.o.a. asses
,\\*e.e*
\\
l l'
March 31, litt I
l-I
./
{
Mr. J. W. Luna, Ceanissioner j
Department of Health and Enytronment Cordell Null Building Nashvilla. TN 37 8 9-5402
Dear teamissioner Luna:
This is to conftm the discussion NRC representatives held on Ja 1989, with you and selected members of your staff following our review v to the State's Radiation Control program.
Your staff was represented by W. K. Scharber and N. N. Mobley. The NRC was represented by R. L. Woodruff and J. C. Lubenau, We appreciated the opportunity to brief you en the Agreement States program and to discuss with you our respective regulatory roles.
It was especially pleasing to our staff to hear your comments supporting the Division of Radiological Health and in particular your comments that the Environmental Special'st position vaca,ncy would be filled.
As you.know, d were unable to offer a statement'of compatibility following our January 1948 routine review in that the " State Regulatfor.s for protection Against Radiation" were in need of revision.
Some progress has been made with respect to updating the State's regulations; however, additional revisions are still needed.
It is extremely isportant that
(
Agreement State regulations be ##pdated to maintain compatibility with NRC's regulations. We believe the State should set a priority of placing revised reg'ulations in effect this year.,so that the Tennessee program is compatible with NAC.
Mr. Mobley has been informed of the eIocific regulations that need revistne.
We will continue to monitor the State s progress in this area $ and also progress made on other consents made in our letter of April 1.1948. Copies of the April 18,1948 letter and the State's reply dated September 9, 1944 are enclosed for your information. As discussed with Mr. Mobley, we believe that the next rovttnc review of the program stil be scheduled fur DeLoneer 1989.
Again, we appreciated your positive comments and we are looking forward to working with you as partners under the A0reement States program.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, Mglatl sign 8d b Caffton Xsameter Carlton Kammerer, Indian Tribe programs Ofreeter State, Local and Office of Governmental and public Affairs
Enclosures:
(seepage 2) 4 t ht?Atat#fr-g.
Mr. J. W. Luna. Commisstener t
Inclosums:
1.
Consent Letter 1
dated 11 !$. 198g i
2.
State y dated Se r 9 1988 3.
NRC know1 amont dated De er 27, 1988 Victor Stallo, Opentions NRC taecutive cc Dimeter for Malcots L. Ernst. Acting,R!!
i Regional Administrator.
Michael N. Nobley. Director 01visfon af Redfclogical Health NRC Pubite Document Room I
i l
t
(
)
9 l
_. _ ~ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _
I ENCLOSURE 1 ComENTS AND RECOMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE TENNESSEE RADIAil0N CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS 1.
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINI$7 RAT!0N Administrative Procedures is a Category !! Indicator.
The following coment with our recospendation is stade.
1 S.EEEd The Radiation Control Program should establish written internal p*ocedures to assure that the staff perfoms its duties as required and to provide a i
high degree of unifomity and continuity in regulatory practices for functions required of the program.
l A.
The exchange of information is an important function of the program.
{
We noted that the State had 70 incidents during this review period i
that were reported to NRC.
However, a sumary of the incidents was not available during the review. Another copy of the All Agreement State letter. 'Exchan Radioactive Materials,ge of Information on Incidents Invo ving dated July 22,19N, was provided to Mr. West and Mr. Mobley.
The suggested femat for documention of incidents found in the letter is adaptable to a word processing system and allows for standardization and retrievability of the incident information by both our Agencies.
8.
We noted that the State does not have a specific procedure addressing the collection and processing of application fees and only the Administrative Supervisor could provide details of the fee assessment and collection procedure.
Another copy.of the All Agreement State letter, *$uggested Content of Agreement State Administrative and Technical Procedures,' dated May 13, 1987, was provided to Mr. Mohley and Mr. West.
Recomendation We recomend that the State reassess and develop their administrative procedures to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity for functions required of the program and we also recomend that the State adopt the standard fomat for reporting incidents to NRC.
II.
COMPLIANCE Inspection Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following coment is made with our reconmendation.
_,..-,_.,.m__.-...,.
. -. -... -....... ~.....
I A
t.
i gggnj During our previous review. we reconnended that the State review their inspection procedures for consistency with the NRC guides.
revise as needed, and implement the procedures into the compliance program.
The State replied that a review of the State's current inspection procedures was in progress. However, during this review.
t we were informed that this project was never completed.
Reco u ndation l
t We recomend that the State complete their assessment and revision of the inspection procedures and implement the procedures into the compliance program. We would like to have your schedule for comple.
tion of this project.
L L
l l
l l
e... - -,. -, - -
n., -.., -,, --
,,,,.n, a
w,
,e
,,-r-v
~
3 i
ENCL 0$URE 2 l
l APPLICATION 0F ' GUIDELINES FOR NRC REYtEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PR06MM$"
l The ' Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs",
were published in the Federal Reglster on June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy i
Statement.
The Guide provides 29 indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas.
Guidance as to their relative importance to en Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category 1 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 11 indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions. Good perfonnance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in i
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 !!
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 I
each coment made.
If no significant Category I coments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and i
safety and is compatible w'th 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 of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I coments, 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 infonnation through follow up correspondence or perfonn 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 Comission 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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.
i i
j NIG't allItafI!K Nf6 i
t 18881L
& lit &L i
$ Pit!!!C 148 Ital!!N I! Git $f P10f.$ tiff
$1PP0tfItall fHil5510HL IftHtt Ifit!
LICill!$
HMtf
$4Mlf
&&Mlf Pfl lH LIC.
til lH LIC.
Stifff!!
$!!Ifff!
(NLull)
(IOLutil (11 18H00 lH56 Ill!!
1.8 1.15 2.0 c.it
!!4
!!HH 18111 Hill 1.32 0.15 2.35 1.l!
i 3H
!HfH
!!H1
$50H 1.31 1.H 4.3 2.75
!!5i lHilH HlH lifH 1.04 0.28
!!.4 i.33 440 HHH 14112 5HH 1.01 8.85
- .li 1920 ilHtt
!!335 4Hi!
1.1 0.5 11 572 Hilti
!!Ill 4H14 1.H 6.11 4.5 1.0 til HfH Hil2 HlH 8.6 8.5 1.2 1
130 14tlH
!!$H Hlf!
1.2 1.!?
1.92
- .35 1250 lHHH
!$158 filH 1.4 1.4 17.5 5
aff 176661 230H 452 0 1.H 4.21 3.5 0.it 353 IHlH 15872 3936 0.1 0.28 3.2 1
588 3250H 17918 427!4 1.H 6.35 5.35 2
529
. Hfill 16591 497H 1.32 1.1 7
4.:
318 54HHs 18844 44152 1.H 8.31 4.35 1
171 632H IHll 44H2 1.0 0.25 1.5 3.43 til tillH 215*1 55158 0.12 C!!
4.!
1.23 Il 23tHis 18832 5t!N 2.7 1
1.1 H
14968H
!HH HlH 1.H 0.H 1.H 1.!!
til
!!16H Nff!
4HH 1.12 0.(?
1.5
- .H H!
195358
!!437 41253 1.6 0.48 2.3 0.55 li2 illlH 1101 75fH 1.H 0.15
!!.!5
- .fi 50 llHH tilft il3H 5.2 3.4 3
2 576 4 Hill 1HH H033 4.H 1.11 5.1 1
454 4H50 21412 Hill 1.88 0.83 f.f 1.5 214 33tHe 23fH 42218 1.8 1.3 2
t.?3 63 52HO
!Hl!
5H37 1.47 0.0 1.1 1.H 284
!!!!54!
!HH 55350 2.5 1
1 3
fl 534 H4tH 14fH H5H 2.2 0.1
!!.i 4
1784 133Hl5 2H2O 47702 1.8 1,48 28.3 8.4 2H llHH IHil 4fH5 1.fi 1.45 4.1 1.03 372 411139 25452 4H2O 1.55 1.!?
5.8 1
IHil 470. H L. !!!It
$1H5 707. fft's 281 15.5 IBGlHALTOTALS till4L
&lilit
$PIC!!!C afG.$tilfilG AfG,IIGilst Pl0ft35!00&L
$1PPott Littl5IS
$1ulf
$4 Lit!
Fft Fft (MLulli (MLLill)
IBGl011 H!l 24135 50856 39.4 88G1012 0 45 19249 49711 52.4 16.4 18G1013 101 237ft 55557 18.7 SIG1084 4264 2HIO tiill 58.5 20 183!055 33 0 23541 4H22 37.1 1.5 e TCTAL HNtf HI IADlif!N F80Gl&ll 18 $ flit, 9010f lifHit! B&B TiOI Ofttt Pl0Glill ENCLOSURE 2
i COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE TENNESSEE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS Scope of Review 1
This program review was conducted in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs pu'lished in the u
Federal Register on June 4,1987, and the internal procedures established by the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, State Programs.
The i
review included discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluationofselectedlicensefilesandcompliancefiles(casework),and the evaluation of the State's response to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
The regulatory program review neeting with Tennessee representatives was held during the period December 11-15, 1989 in Nashville, Tennessee. The State was represented by Michael H. Mobley, Director, Division of Radiological Health; Charles P. West, Assistant Director; Johnny C. Graves, Supervisor, Licensing and Registration; and Edward L. Nanny, Supervisor, Inspections and Enforcement. A review of selected license and inspection files was conducted by Richard L. Woodruff, Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO), Region II; and Jack W. Hornor, RSA0, Region Y on December 11-14 1989, and assisted by John Pelchat, Region !! on December 11 and 12,1989. A summary meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was held with Wayne K. Scharber, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Health and Environment; Kenneth W. Bunting.
Director, Bureau of Environment; and Michael H. Mobley on December 15, 1989.
Conclusion A finding of adequacy and compatibility is being postponed until the State's radiation control regulations have been amended, and the overdue I
inspections have been adequately addressed.
Status of Previous NRC Comments and Recommendations Comments and recommendations from NRC's previous review were sent to the State in a letter dated April 15, 1988, and again following our Mid-Review Visit conducted on January 4-6, 1989. All comments have been closed out except for the following.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations.
Staff comments and recommendations were provided again in our cover letter to this report.
Training.
The State has utilized numerous opportunities to provide training courses to designated staff members.
These courses were sponsored by NRC, other agencies, and the State. The State has ENCLOSURE 3
2 utilized quarterly, technical staff meetings to provide cross j
training between the regions. These are acceptable steps to improve the training program for the staff.
Evaluation by NRC of the effectiveness of this training effort will be made during " inspector accompaniments" and " visits" to the State's Regional Compliance I
Offices which will be scheduled later in 1990.
Inspection Procedures have been compiled and assembled into a draft Procedures Manual.
This manual was provided to the reviewer prior to the exit meetings. Work on this manual is continuing.
Current Review Comments and Recommendations All 29 indicators were reviewed in depth and the State satisfies the guidelines in 19 of these indicators.
Specific comments and recommendations are as follows:
1.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is of major significance.
Comment for those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but no later i
l than three years.
Regulations that are needed to maintain compatibility are as follows:
(1) " Transportation Regulations Compatibility with IAEA." 10 CFR Part 71, effective September 6, 1983; (2) " Elimination of Exemption for Glass Enamel and Glass Enamel Frit," 10 CFR 40.13(c)(2), effective September 11, 1984; I
(3) " Medical Records and Reports of Misadministrations," 10 CFR 35.33, effective April 1,1987; and (4)
- Requirements for Well
!.ogging," 10 CFR Part 39, effective July 13, 1987. These rules were identified in a letter to the State dated April 15, 1988 following our previous routine review, and again following a visit with you and our subsequent letter of March 21, 1989.
Copies of our letter of March 21, 1989 and the attachments are provided as Enclosure 1.
l Program staff have drafted propose:I amendments for each rule l
required for compatibility, and some of the rules were adopted; however, your staff continues to encounter difficulties in moving the proposed amendments through the administrative process. We have concerns about the ability of the Department to effect timely rule l
changes that are needed for compatibility.
Recommendation The State needs to update its regulations to maintain compatibility.
.-r.
m
I j
i 3
(
l i
Further updating will be necessary in 1991 as follows:
Subject NRC Rule Certification of Dosimetry Processors 10 CFR Part 20 Decomissioning Rule 10 CFR Part 30, 40 and 70 We recomend that the Department review its rulemaking procedures with a view towards streamlining the procedures where possible eliminating unnecessary delays.
2.
Staffing Level is a Category !! Indicator.
The following coment with our recommendation is made.
Coment The program has one technical position vacant in the Licensing i
Section which is having a detrimental affect on the licensing actions that are needed for an effective regulatory program.
The program has 537 licenses, of which 18 licenses are considered to be major licenses, requiring highly trained and experienced technical license reviewers.
We noted that a significant backlog has developed in the Licensing Section, in addition to the inspection i
backlog addressed above.
We understand that a hiring freeze has been imposed statewide except for critical positions.
Recommendation This technical position vacancy is critical to the program, and we recomend that the position be filled as soon as possible.
3.
Staff Continuity is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The Program has lost seven trained, experienced, technical staff members since the last review.
This represents approximately 30 percent of the technical staff.
One senior license reviewer retired, one license reviewer returned to graduate school, one person got married, and four persons reportedly left the program for ligher salaries.
Based upon information gathered during our reviews of the Agreement State Programs, it appears that your Environmental S)ecialist classifications do not compare favorably with the " Health P1ysics" type classifications found in the industry and other Agreement States.
In general, the Tennessee salary ranges for the technical staff are below those salary ranges found in other southeastern States.
The starting salary is more than $4,000 below the average starting $5,000 below the average highest salaries of allsalary in a salary is more than Region II States.
This information was provided to Mr. Mobley during the review, and also provided as Enclosure 2.
l 4
Recomendation We recommend that the job classifications and respective salary f
ranges be reviewed and upgraded as needed to provide better staff continuity.
4.
Status of the Inspection Program is a Category I Indicator.
The following comment with our recomendation is of major significance.
Comeg The State has 137 licenses that are overdue for inspection representing 25 percent of the total specific licenses issued.
Of the total overdue, 36 have inspection priorities I thru IV and the remaining (101) are priority V licenses. Of tha 36 (priority I-IV) overdue, 2 are overdue by more than 50 percent of their initial inspection frequency.
The State cannot locate one priority IV licensee that is overdue for initial inspection by 27 months.
In addition, program management has verbally suspended all routine material license inspections except for " fee category 9" licenses until the x-ray inspections due for 1989 have been completed.
Recomendation We recomend that the State re-evaluate their inspection policies and develop a plan to eliminate the inspection backlog.
The plan should include goals and milestones for each regional office and monthly written reports to program management that sumarizes by region, the inspections performed, status of enforcement actions, and the status of the inspection backlog by priority.
5.
Inspection Frequency is a Category I Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is provided.
Coment The Radiation Control program should have an inspection priority system with the minimum inspection frequency including initial inspections no less than the NRC system. The NRC inspects "In Vitro Laboratories ( 200 microcuries)" initially at six months, and on a five year frequency thereaf ter. The State established an inspection priority of V to the In Vitro Laboratories ( 200 microcuries) which s
are inspected at'six months initially and routine inspections are conducted at a 5 percent per year basis.
This allows the routine inspections to be conducted at a greater inspection interval than the interval used by NRC.
Recomendation We recomend that the State's inspection priority V be changed to a five year routine frequency.
1 Enclosure ?
5 6.
Inspectors' Performance and Capability is a Category I Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is provided.
i Comment The Compliance Supervisor or the Program Director should conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance and i
assure application of appropriate and consistent policies and j
guides.
Information provided by the staff indicates that some inspection accompaniments were conducted by the Compliance i
Supervisor and one accompaniment by the Program Director since the 1ast review.
However, all of the inspectors were not accompanied during the review period.
Recomendation i
We recommend that the Compliance Supervisor or the Program Manager conduct field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance i
and assure application of appropriate policies and guides on an annual basis.
7.
Administrative Procedures is a Category 11 Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The Radiation Control Program 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 regulatory practices, a.
A draft Procedures Manual has been compiled and was provided to i
the reviewers on the fourth day of the review. As noted by the technical staff, the manual is in draft form and considerable refinement is needed.
When completed the manual is to be distributed to the Nashville and the Regional staffs.
b.
The Assistant Director maintains a listing of all NRC Information Notices (ins) received and determines the routing and distribution of each document.
Information Notices usually contain information that is usefull to all of the technical staff including license reviewers, inspectors and their technical managers.
Technical documents should be made available to all technical staff members and distributed to the regional offices.
From our discussions with program staff, it appears that the routing and distribution system needs refinement along with a uniform central filing system for all technical documents.
,... - - +,
...,.m.
m
6 Recommendation I
L We recommend that the staff continue their efforts to revise and refine the draft Procedures Manual to assure that program functions are carried out as required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices.
This includes additional review and refinement of the routing, distribution and filing system for all technical documents.
8.
Management is a Category II Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment Where regional offices are utilized by the Radiation Control Program, program management should conduct periodic audits of these offices.
Apparently, some visits were made to the regional offices by program management during the review period; however, these visits were not considered to be audits and additional information e
concerning the scope of the visits was not provided during the review.
Recommendation We recomend that program management conduct periodic internal audits of their regional offices to determine if the program functions are being carried out as intended, in accordance with State policies, and document the audit findings.
9.
Licensing Procedures is a Category II indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is provided.
Comment g
The Radiation Control Program should have internal licensing policy and procedures consistent with current NRC practice.
Due to staffing levels and staff turnovers in the licensing section, a license renewal backlog has developed.
In lieu of issuing " timely renewals" (NRC practice) for routine renewals, the State elected to extend the expiration date on all licenses except for the " fee l
category 9" type licenses by one year. This action would allow the program to keep current on the major licensing actions and amendments, and train new license reviewers.
However, due to a continued staff vacancy and additional staff turnovers, the program is faced with extending routine license renewals for the second year beyond the normal five year license term.
Some of these licenses have already been extended for the second time without the benefit of a technical review.
In addition, the program now has a backlog of 58 licenses (16 new applications, 32 amendments, and 10 renewals) that are in need of licensing actions. Other considerations should be factored into the license renewal policy such as type of license (category), complexity of the renewal actions needed, projected 0
1 7
workload for at least five years, staff resources available (near term) and the long term staffing requirenents.
Reconnendation We recommend that the 'one year renewal extension" policy be re-evaluated with consideration being given to the license category i
and the nunber of extensions permittet.
Also, an overall written i
plan for reducing the backlog should be developed including milestone timeframes and monthly status reports to management that summarizes the licensing actions taken by type of license, and the status of the backlog.
10.
Inspection Reports is a Category II indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is provided.
Comment Reports should uniformly and adequately document the result of inspections.
The State uses two forms for documentin results, one " generic" form and a " Radiography" form.g inspection The cover pages for both forms are in need of revision to delete the acronym "TOSHA," revise the " Type of Inspection" to include (Initial, Routine, Special, Announced, and Unannounced) notations, and add a provision for "Next Inspection Due." The body of the
- generic" form shouldberevisedtoallowfordiscussionsoftheALARAprogram},
interviews (workers, user, etc.), audits. (internal or corporate records review period (or sampled), receipt of material, and transportation / shipping requirements.
The generic form should also be supplemented with specialized enclosures designed specifically for Medical, Teletherapy, Pharmacy, and Academic type inspections.
The Industrial Radiography form should also be revised to reflect the new regulation requirements and audits.
Recommendation We recommend that the inspection report forms be revised for uniformity and to adequately document inspection results, and accommodate new changes in the regulatory requirements.
Summary Discussion with State Representatives A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review meeting was held with Wayne K. Scharber, Assistant Commissioner.
Department of Health and Environment; Kenneth W. Bunting, Director, Bureau of Environment; and Michael H. Mobley, Director, Division of Radiological Health.
The scope of the review was discussed along with NRC staff comments on Status and Compatibility of Regulations, Status of Inspection Program Staffing Level, Staff Continuity, and staff findings regarding adequacy and compatibility.
In response, Mr. Scharber related
TJ,
- i p:
(t F
- ,. Enclosure 3 8
,5 6
that he appreciated our coments and he would brief Comissioner Luna on our concerns and'the seriousness of our findings.
In closing _NRC's mechanism for reporting the results of the review were discussed in
- detail, o,
i t
F l
1
('.
1 l
1.
I L
l l:
e E
4
l l
n APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" i
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 twe categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly reipte 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 progr6m 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 coment made.
If no significant Category I coments 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 particelar program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I coments, 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 lef t unresolved over a prolonged period.
The Comission will be informed 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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 3
as amended.
ENCLOSURE 4