ML20206R883
| ML20206R883 | |
| 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: ML20206R883 (6) | |
Text
a s , .~s *
- . +
.5
[, ,
x; - ,y; -
. x <
t , a 1' -
SEP 151386 .
- e. ;. ,
L t l Mr. , Charles IJ Tedford', Director' w ? Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency-
> . 4814 South 40th Street ,d .
Phoenix, Arizona ;85040 -
Dear.Mr.:
Tedford: .
t This.~is to' confirm the discus'sion 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.
~
, ,o The results of-our review indica'te. thSt the Arizona Radiation Control Program is adequate to protect the public health and safety an'd is compatible with the
- NRC and other. agreement states for
- regulating agreement inaterials. Wefare
- pleased to note your success in completing the up; dating of your regulations
.and in.;the development of administrative procedures.- The Radioactivei
. Materials Program . Manager, and . staff. are.. to.be commended for. completing these-
. -ta'sks'while-carrying (out a quality, radiation control
- program. -
> 7 ,
~ Enclosure-1 contains comments regardingtthe tedhnical 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 -
~
,g reviewing agreement State programs. Enclosure 43 is a copy of this letter for placement.inithe. State's Public Document' Room or otherwise,to be made~
~
available for public review. -
4 I' appreciate. the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Hornor
, during the review. ;
Sincerely, Original Signed by John B, Martin,
, John B. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Comments and Recommendations on Technical and Administrative Aspects ~of the Arizona Radiation c -Control Program
- 2. Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" d/
- 3. Letter to Mr. Charles F. Tedford, from John B. Martin, dated-
'/ hL
//
1
~
,s go ,
~ 4
-, e - -
1, , i ,
.f"
'( 'i "
- s ',
4 .1 m L ^ ,
f , e _
r .
- 4 i >
- [ >
.g, ,.
~
- -2 . " ~
f v -'
c.
- SEP 151986
+.. ,.
. , s
- t , v, .. ,
c- 6 v' s
- +.,
-:cc w/ enclosures: .
.f' .
~ ~
JJames.Apperson,-Special Assistant,
- Off.~ of the' Governor of. Arizona i
' ~
G. Wayne _Kerr, Director 'l . ' ', ,
i Off. of State Programs, NRC
, mbec w/ enclosure:
~RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)' .,
G. Cook' B.'Faulkenberry '
J. Martin ,,
- . ~...
s s
I f
4 i: .
j- Region V
' % inorma- RScarano GWKerr EDO JBMartin I
[ 9/$ 86 9//J/86 - 9/ -/86 9/ /86 9/ /86 i
't-
. - - . ,,e, _m~- ,y. ,m,- - - - , - , y .+, , , , , , e y . , , , . - , . - ---,,,,,-.m-- , , , , vw , -.s ..-e..,3-my - g
' ; ,. ~
z .
. s.
,'s N- 1 .@7
.. : . 1-
. Enclosure ~1 ' '
' Comments and Reconsendations on Technical and Administrative
~
Aspects of the-Arizona Radiation Control Program' I. ; Management and Administration 1
^>
~
A._ AdministrativeProceduresisaCatAgoryII: Indicator."The'following-comment is made'with our recommendation.
- l
~
, 1 %
1
' Comment '4 The~ Radiation-Control Program-(RCP) sh'o' u ld establish written internal procedures: to assure _ that -the staff performs its duties as
- 1 required'and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity;
~
^ ~ c 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 St' ate complete implementation offits written-internal procedures, and that the State. periodically review and update these procedures 1 to assure that they are consistent with
~
3It .
current. regulatory practices, j ,.' l i
~
B. 0ffice' Equipment and Supp^ ort Services is a Category II. Indicator. _
y
^
, 1The'following comment is made with our recommendation. .
.j 9
c , , ,,
-v Comment?..
,I' br' u '
- ~, '
The RCP'should have adequate secretarial;and. clerical support.
~
. Automatic (typing and automatic data processing with retrieval
~ '
, ~ . y ;
capability should be available to larger (300-400 licenses).
c -
Ei
.t ' ,
, . programs; The Arizona RCP has approximately 420 licenses and is! s i f'~ ,; 3 '
.opdrating 'with' a manual data ~ collection and tracking system. This' "' <
1 j '
'i 'l 1 has re'sulted in some lapses in' enforcement action,' expiration of .
4
- f. ,1 . ~ licenses without follow-up and development of a backlog of overdue -
L -
^ initial inspections. In' addition, a system for marking and d ,o recording the removal of licensee . folders from the' files is not s
adequate. As'a result it is difficult to locat'e the file folders
\
- when they are needed for licensing and' compliance activities. 1 i I
- Recommendation i
We recommend that ARRA review its processing and filing practices- '
and revise and upgrade these areas as appropriate. i
'II. Compliance Enforcement Procedures is a Category I Indicator. The following !
minor comment and recommendation is made: l m
- p. Comment I
< j. .
3
(*
-( t
, s , .t
'.I' % "g r ,
- ,' /
- -
i ;
d ' ', ~>
. . 3 1.. Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial 9 9,f g
,1 i , deterrent to licensee non' compliance with' regulatory requirements. -c'
~
- r -Enforcement letters should be' issued-within 30 days-following the
~
+.
. inspection. 'The-RCP has sent out enforcement letters which were mailed i'4 '
45,.60, 80,land 83 days from the date of the. inspection. There were, . '
J
' [-' ' ; however, mitigating circumstances involved. .First,' the introduction of .
c'- -
' civil. penalties required approval from the ' Attorney General's office -'
'. which was sometimes delayed, and second, the-ARRA moved its office from
' ~
s Tempe to Phoenix during the review period.
P
- Recommendation
}We recommend'that in, addition to'the earlier recommendation that the i
State improve its tracking system for the following of enforcement r 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 inspecti T.
-b
=
4
9 a, - -~ . c, . - - .
w - <
s
- s ,
- n *
~'
g- N , -
l 1
s qr - ' ~
Enclosure 2
~
~r .
p Application of " Guidelines.for NRC Review
'of Agreement: State Radiation Control Programs" ,
, The "Guidblines for NRC Review ~of Agreement. State < Radiation Control Programs," ,
we're-published in the Federal:.RegisterJon_ December.4',.1981,.as an NRC Policy _
i Statement-.' -TheLGuide provides30 indicators for, evaluating Agreement State
~
s 3~~
program areas. Guidance as? t o theirirelative importance1to an Agreement State ~
. ' program is.provided by categorizing the'indicatorslinto:twofcategories.
c*
_ , 1 .J
, l-
' Category I indicators addressiprogram functions which!directly relate to the
~
~
_ State's_ ability.to' protect the public health and safety._-If.significant T- -
f problems exist 'in several;. Category 'I indicato'r 'are'as, then' the need for ' '
- improvementsmaybe; 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
- 1. ' order'to' avoid.the development of problems'-in one or mor'e of the principal-
, v ' program areas,- i.e. , those that fall under Category I indicators. -Category II indicators. frequently.can be'used to identify underlying problems that are l . causing, or contributing to,' difficulties :ba Category I indicators.
'It is thei RC's N iutention to use these categories in-the following manner. In reporting. findings:to State management, the NRC will indicate.the category of each comment made~ Iffno significant Category I' comments are provided, this
]: will; indicate.that the program is adequate to protect the public health and
- r. 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 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 developed, the NRC may institute proceeding's.to suspend or revoke all o'r 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 1
.these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during'the next fregular program review.
4 4
L 1
4 I
A
, b 4 ,
s , ,, y rn , . . . ~ . , . - , , , . - - . - - . , . . , , . . -
- -n.-,.., -, - - - - . . , . . - - - , ,, , . , . - + . , . -
EO Mr. Charles F. Tedford, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40th Street 0 88 g ep34g/ 2 g /2 Phoenix, Arizona 85040
- NION yp,0
Dear Mr. Tedford:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack llornor, 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 t.ampleting the updating of your regulations and in tne 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 coments 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:
i 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 / /
l cc w/ enclosures: bec w/ enclosure:
James Apperson, Special Assistant, RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Off. of the Governor of Arizona G. Cook l
G. Wayne Kerr, Director B. Faulkepbe l
Off. of State Programs, NRC J. tiar in egion V Hornor/ norma h-R5carano Kerr E0 J n
yt,g/3 /86 g/3/86 A,{ /86 }/7//86 f/p/86
._ - . _