ML20054D940
| ML20054D940 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/11/1982 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Fowinkle E TENNESSEE, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204230527 | |
| Download: ML20054D940 (6) | |
Text
- c/ke
(
O g
0)
MAR 11 * ?
s necetygo_
g
~
APR 22199y Dr. Eugene W. Fowinkle, Commissioner usuuna:wm %
Department of Public Health "p sa
//
344 Cordell Hull Building Nashville, TN 37219
Dear Dr. Fowinkle:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, Region II State Agreements Representative, held with you and your staff following our review and evaluation of the State radiation control program.
The review covered the principal administrative and technical aspects of the program. This included an examination of the programs' legislation and regulations, organization, manage-ment and administration, personnel, licensing and compliance, and field evalu-ation of a State inspector. In addition, Mr. Woodruff, Mr. Jim Ashley, Office of State Programs, and Mr. John Kahle, Region II, assisted your staff during an unannounced inspection of the TNS, Inc., facility at Jonesboro, Tennessee.
Our review used as a reference, the NRC " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," published in the Federal Register on December 4, 1981, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 30 Indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas.
Guidance as their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the Indicators into two categories. Category I Indicators address program functions that directly relate to the State's ability to protect public health and safety.
Category II Indicators address functions which provide essential technical and administrative support. As a result our our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Tennessee, the staff believes that the Tennessee program for regulation of agreement material is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program; however, improvement in some of the program areas is needed.
The state's " Rules and Regulations for Radioactive Materials" were last revised in 1978.
Updating of Regulations is a Category II Indicator.
Our Guide for acceptable practice calls for those State regulations necessary to maintain compatibility be made effective as soon as practicable but no later than three yes.rs after adoption by NRC. At the time of this review, the revised regulations were being finalized but an effective date had not been established.
It was noted that the provisions of those NRC regulations that have been made a matter e
of compatibility were being implemented through the licensing process.
We recommend that revision of the regulations be completed.
The Tennessee program for regulation of agreement materials presently has a staffing level of 0.9 person years per 100 licenses. The number of personnel is a Category II Indicator.
The present staffing level is slightly below the NRC recommended range of 1.0 - 1.5 person years per 100 licenses.
This staffing which is borderline for current workload is likely to be insufficient when the future projected workload is considered.
For example, the number of licenses have increased during the past year by 10; and the number of licenses scheduled I
(0dfICl W
820d25 DS 1
fE3I S
q MAR 111997 2
for renewal will also increase during 1983. Your staff estimated that over 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> of onsite inspection time were devoted to the TNS facility and that over nine person months were devoted to emergency planning.
In addition, the State
- has three compliance regions of which only two regions are staffed with
-physicists. We recommend that the staffing level be increased.
With regard to our technical assistance during the unannounced inspection at the TNS facility, our staff did not observe any operation that it believed repre-sented an imminent danger to the public health and safety. However, the condi-tions observed and evaluated do raise questions about the effectiveness of the licensee's health physics program. Apparent violations of Tennessee radiation protsetion regulations were identified and comments were provided to the. State inspector by the NRC staff for his exit meeting with the ' licensee. We recommend that the State require the licensee to take actions to: (1) correct the apparent items of noncompliance; (2) upgrade the health physics program; and (3) provide in writing a schedule for installation of engineering controls to reduce air-borne radioactivity concentrations in plant areas and in effluents to the environment.
Enclosed with this letter are additional comments regarding the technical aspects of the program. These comments were discussed with Mr. Graham and you may wish to have Mr. Graham address them in your reply to this letter.
We were pleased to learn that your staff has significantly reduced the number of overdue inspections since our last review, and that your written procedures for escalated enforcement actions have been prepared and are in the process of being.
approved.
We understand that a bill has been introduced into the Tennessee Legislature to provide for the establishment of civil penalties.
We fully support this legislation as we consider civil penalty authority to be an important element of your enforcement capabilities.
In accordance with our practice, I am enclosing a second copy of this letter which should be placed in your State's Public Document Room or otherwise made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Woodruff and the other NRC staff during the review.
Sincerely, James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
i As Stated cc w/ encl:
(See Page 3)
3 MAR 111882 cc w/ encl:
W. A. Bill Graham, Director Division of Radiological Health Department of Public Health G. W. Kerr, Director Of fice of State Programs, NRC State of Tennessee Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room bcc w/ encl:
James P 0'Reilly J. A. Oishinski R. L. Woodruff R. E. Trojanowski ETP File SA/RII fp d RI SA pp)
SA k gp SPh $
ED0kf/#
RII RLWoodruff:aw J
shinski JOLtaenau DANJ>sbaumer GWhbrr WKDitcks RMartin 03/.f/82 0 /$782 03/9 /82 03/ 6/82 03/s /82 03//0/82 03/ /82 (Telecon)
(Telecon)
(Telecon (Telecon) k Cs>
~
ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF TENNESSEE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I.
PERSONNEL Training is a Category II Indicator.
The following minor comment and recommendation are made.
Comment It was noted that the supervisors have had considerable training and experience; however, the three physicists who are performing most of the inspections have not received specific training in the NRC Radiation Safety core courses in medical practices, inspection procedures, and teletherapy calibration.
Recommendation We recommend that your personnel continue to participate in the NRC sponsored training courses as they are made available to your staff.
4 II.
LICENSING Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following minor comments and recommendations are made.
A.
Comment License applicants, including renewals, should be furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.
The staff stated that formal guides were in preparation, and that specific information was sent to the applicant upon request.
Recommendation We recommend that licensing guides be completed and made available on a routine basis to license applicants, especially for medical and industrial radiography applicants.
B.
Comment Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information and documentation of discussions and visits, and administrative procedures should be used to assure uniform I
2 documentation and maintenance of files and records. It was noted that (a) some official file copies of licenses were unsigned and the concurrences were unclear as to intent, (b) some license applications for amendments were signed by consultants or a technologist, and (c) the license, application, backup materials, and the latest inspection report with enforcement correspondence were all filed together in the license folder. Backup materials should be filed with the corresponding license or license amendment, and separated from inspection reports and enforcement correspondence.
Recommendation We recommend that administrative procedures be revised to require (a) official copies of each license to be signed or stamped with a signature, (b) applications be accepted only from individuals authorized to sign on behalf of the institution, and (c) the file folders be arranged to permit the separation of file materials and accurate retrieval of information.
III. COMPLIANCE A.
Inspection Procedures are a Category II Indicator. The following minor comment and recommendation are made.
Comment Based upon compliance file reviews, staff discussions, and accompani-ments, formal inspection guides are not provided to the inspectors to assure that uniform and complets inspection practices are followed. It was also noted that during exit interviews, items of noncompliance are discussed without identification of the corresponding rule or license condition that was violated.
Recommendation We recommend that inspection guides be developed for each major category of license to provide guidance to the inspector both during preparation for, and during the inspection. The inspection guides or the field notes should identify the applicable code section or license e
condition (s) that were violated.
B.
Inspection Reports are a Category II Indicator. The following minor comment and recommendation are made.
Comment In general the staff should be commended on the quality of their inspection reports; however, in some cases additional information was needed to (a) document the scope of the licensee's program, (b) docu-ment internal audits performed by radiography licensees, (c) document
-.__y
-rr
-,-r
,c-e.-.
3 QA tests performed on dose calibrators, and (d) document the use of protective equipment such as syringe shields. We noted that inspec-tion report formats are the same for all categories of licenses except,
- a special format is utilized for radiography inspections.
Recommendation We recommend that the inspection reports provide sufficient details to document the scope of the inspection, scope of the licensee's programs, QA test used, and protective equipment utilized by the licensee.
It may be helpful to develop an inspection report format specific for medical programs.
C.
Independent Measurements are a Category II Indicator.
The following minor comment and recommendation are made.
Comment It was noted during the review that teletherapy spot check measurements are not performed by the inspectors. The staff stated that none of the current staff had been to the teletherapy calibration course.
Recommendation We acknowledge that attendance at the NRC sponsored teletherapy course has been limited; however, we recommend that the state develop the capability for conducting calibration spot check measurements during inspections. NRC personnel can be made available on a case-by-case basis to assist the State during teletherapy inspections.
s b
e