ML20206R880
| ML20206R880 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/15/1986 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Tedford C ARIZONA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609190230 | |
| Download: ML20206R880 (6) | |
Text
s * * [gj
$nnero UNITED STATES CM DrOOr 8- o,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d j REGION V
% f 1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 210
%, 4 4' 0 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 4*** ..
SEP 151986 Mr. Charles F. Tedford, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040
Dear Mr. Tedford:
This is to confirm & etiscussion Mr. Jack Hornor, NRC State Agreement Representative, helo on August 15, 1986, with you and your staff following our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control program.
The results of our review indicate that the Arizona Radiation Control Program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC and other agreement states for regulating agreement materials. We are pleased to note your success in completing the updating of your regulations and in the development of administrative procedures. The Radioactive Materials Program Manager and staff are to be commended for completing these tasks while carrying out a quality radiation control program.
Enclosure 1 contains comments regarding the technical and administrative aspects of the review. We would appreciate your responding to our comments.
Enclosure 2 contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing agreement State programs. Enclosure 3 is a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Hornor during the review.
Sin ly,
. f/fdhN John B. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Comments and Recommendations on Technical and Administrative Aspects of the Arizona Radiation Control. Program
- 2. Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs"
- 3. Letter to Mr. Charles F. Tedford, from John B. Martin, dated / /
8609190230 860715 PDR STPRG ESGAZ PDR
,\
S PO)
1 -
SEP 151986 cc w/ enclosures:
James Apperson, Special Assistant, Off. of the Governor of Arizona G. Wayne Kerr, Director Off. of State Programs, NRC e
e I
) .
O O
6 l
l
)
.. _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . , . _ _ _ - ,__.,,__._,.,__.,-_m _.....,__.,_,_.,.~._,_-.___m_._.. .. _ . .- _ _ _ . , .- - . -
e Enclosure 1 Comments and Recommendations on Technical and Administrative Aspects of the Arizona Radiation Control Program I. Management and Administration A. Administrative Procedures is s' Category II Indicator. The following comment is made with our recommendation.
Comment The Radiation Control Program (RCP) should establish written internal procedures to assure that the staff performs its duties as required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices. Arizona has developed a good set of written internal procedures; however, they were not entirely implemented at the time of the review.
Recommendation We recommend that the State complete implementation of its written internal procedures, and that the State periodically review and update these procedures to assure that they are consistent with current regulatory practices.
B. Office Equipment and Support Services is a Category II Indicator.
The following comment is made with our recommendation.
Comment The RCP should have adequate secretarial and clerical support.
Automatic typing and automatic data processing with retrieval capability should be available to larger (300-400 licenses) programs. The Arizona RCP has approximately 420 licenses and-is operating with a manual data collection and tracking system. This has resulted in some lapses in enforcement action, expiration of
, licenses without follow-up and development of a backlog of overdue
! initial inspections. In addition, a system for marking and recording the removal of licensee folders from the files is not l adequate. As a result it is difficult to locate the file folders when they are needed for licensing and compliance activities.
Recommendation We recommend that ARRA review its processing and filing practices and revise and upgrade these areas as appropriate.
II. Compliance Enforcement Procedures is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment and recommendation is made:
Comment
Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulatory requirements.
Enforcement letters should be issued within 30 days following the inspection. The RCP has sent out enforcement letters which were mailed 45, 60, 80, and 83 days from the date of the inspection. There were, however, mitigating circumstances involved. First, the introduction of civil penalties required approval from the Attorney General's office which was sometimes delayed, and second, the ARRA moved its office from Tempe to Phoenix during the review period.
Recommendation We recommend that in, addition to the earlier recommendation that the State improve its tracking system for the following of enforcement
' correspondence, the State should also streamline the procedures for obtaining the Attorney General's concurrence on such correspondence so that the enforcement letters can go out within 30 days of the inspection.
1 L J
- q. :.
Enclosure 2 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 December 4, 1981, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 30 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 several 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 adequate to protect the public health and safety. If at least one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority basis. When more than one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical. The NRC would request an immediate l response, and may perform a followup review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have f developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement. Category II comments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public. The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
l 0
0
RicfE0 t;, ~
Mr. Charles F. Tedford, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40th Street ~ N8 gyp /29 g/22 4
-Phoenix, Arizona 85040 I
Dear Mr. Tedford:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack Hornor, NRC State Agreement Representative, held on August 15, 1986, with you and your staff following our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control program.
! The results of our review indicate that the Arizona Radiation Control Program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC and other agreement states for regulating agreement materials. We are pleased to note your success in completing the updating of your regulations and in the development of administrative procedures. The Radioactive Materials Program Manager and staff are to be connended for completing these tasks while carrying out a quality radiation control program.
Enclosure 1 contains connents regarding the technical and administrative aspects of the review. We would appreciate your responding to our comments.
Enclosure 2 contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing agreement State programs. Enclosure 3 is a copy of this
- letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to
- be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr.
Hornor during the review.
Sincerely, John B. Martin Regional Administrator
~
Enclosures:
- 1. Connents and Recommendations on i
Technical and Administrative Aspects of the Arizona Radiation Control Program
- i. 2. Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs"
- 3. Letter to Mr. Charles F. Tedford, from John B. Martin, dated / /
i cc w/ enclosures: bec w/ enclosure:
James Apperson, Special Assistant,
~
RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
, Off. of the Governor of Arizona G. Cook G. Wayne Kerr, Director B. Faulke i
Off of State Programs, NRC '
J. Mar n
'~
egion V '
h FLg/3 /86 Hornor/ norma R carano g/3/86
[Merr E0 eq/86 }/1//86 p/y6 A artin