ML20207M083
| ML20207M083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/05/1987 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Griepentrog J NEVADA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701130081 | |
| Download: ML20207M083 (18) | |
Text
e t
p KEY (f
UNITED STATES
['
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V l
g
.j 1
1450 MARIA LANE. SUITE 210 C
g WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
%*"**,d JAN 5 1987 Mr. Jerry Griepentrog, Director Department of Human Resources 505 E. King Street, Room 600 Carson City, Nevada 89710
Dear Mr. Griepentrog:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack Hornor, Region V State Agreements Representative, held with Mr. Lawrence Matheis, Administrator, Health Division, and other members of your staff on November 20, 1986, following our review of the State's radiation control program.
Based on the results of our review, we are withholding a determination of adequacy and compatibility for the program pending our receipt and evaluation of the State's corrective actions for addressing two deficiencies with Category I indicators as defined in the NRC " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs", published in the Federal Register on December 4, 1981.
The minor problems noted in these areas during our 1985 review have become more serious.
Enforcement is a Category I Indicator. Enforcement actions should be timely and should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance.
Several cases were found in which the indicated enforcement action was either not taken or its effectiveness was reduced because the State's action was not timely. One example that illustrates the seriousness of this issue is the handling of the University of Nevada case.
An inspection in June, 1986, resulted in numerous items of non-compliance, several of which were repeat violations.
Although a letter has been drafted by your staff noting that the licensee's response and corrective actions presented during an enforcement conference in August, 1986, was not satisfactory, no further action has been taken.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator. In several cases, the State issued licenses that were not compatible with policies of the NRC and which had potential health and safety implications.
Specific problem areas are detailed in Enclosure 1.
We believe the lack of suitable administrative and technical procedures is an underlying factor ir, both findings. The lack of written procedures has been identified as a deficiency in the program in the past two reviews, but no significant action has been taken by the State to develop and implement such procedures.
l In addition, it has been the experience of the NRC and other Agreement States l
that it is necessary to maintain a professional staffing ratio of from 1.0 to 1.5 person years per 100 licenses, excluding the staff necessary to maintain i the low-level waste program.
Nevada's staffing level for radioactive materials is now 0.75 person years per 100 licenses. We are concerned that i
the failure to maintain an adequate staffing level will cause further problemsj s
8701130081 8701 l
PDR STPRG ESG f
R
,2 If /
t
- JAN 5 1987 in program effectiveness and preclude the development of procedures and staff training necessary to correct program deficiencies. contains additional comments regarding the technical aspects of our review of the program.
These comments were discussed with Mr. Marshall during our exit meeting with him.
Due to the serious nature of these problems, we are asking for your prompt response setting forth the actions to be taken and the time for completion. We plan a follow up review within six months to evaluate the progress made. At that time we expect to be in a position to decide what finding should be made concerning the adequacy and compatibility of the radiation control program.
The Nevada low-level radioactive waste program was also discussed.
Dr. Malcolm Knapp and Mrs. Kathleen Schneider from NRC headquarters were present to discuss this matter. We understand you wish to renew the license for the disposal site with NRC concurrence, as soon as possible.
Current guidelines, possible technical assistance and expected manpower requirements were the main topics discussed with the staff and summarized with Mr. Matheis.
We will send the latest NRC guidelines and other technical references pertaining to existing low-level radioactive waste sites under separate cover. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. 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 and my staff during the review.
Sin rely, feV John B. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. Lawrence Matheis, Administrator, Health Division Mr. Stanley Marshall, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section State of Nevada Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room (Code SP01)
Mr. G. Wayne Kerr, Director OSP
i in progran effectiveness and preclude the development of procedures and staff training necessary to correct progran deficiencies. contains additional comments regarding the technical aspects of our review of the program. These comments were discussed with Mr. Itarshall-during our exit meeting with him.
Due to the serious nature of these problems, we are asking for your prompt response setting forth the actions to be taken and the time for completion.
We plan a follow-up review within six months to evaluate the progress made.
At that time we expect to be in a position to decide what finding should be made concerning the adequacy and compatibility of the radiation control program.
The Nevada low-level radioactive waste program was also discussed.
Dr. Malcolm Knapp and Mrs. Kathleen Schneider from NRC headquarters were present to discuss this matter. We understand you wish to renew the license for the disposal site with NRC concurrence, as soon as possible. Current guidelines, possible technical assistance and expected manpower requirements were the main topics discussed with the staff and sumarized with Mr. Matheis.
We will send the latest NRC guidelines and other technical references pertaining to existing low-level radioactive waste sites under separate cover. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. is a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document room or othemise to be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended h,
-or staff to Mr. Hornor and my staff during the review.
Oth!
hidby Joan a, Martir1 John B. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. Lawrence Matheis, Administrator, Health Divisio Mr. Stanley Marshall, Supervisor, Radiological Hea h Section State of Nevada Public Document Roon
/
NRC Public Document Room (Code SP01) /
Mr. G. Wayne Kerr, Director OSP l
3 RV@
RV j
EDO RV f[{f g JHornor RScarano err BU in r j
1[?/.f86 12/h/86 12/d/86 12/
/86 1/
6 1
ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE NEVADA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS 1.
Management and Administration Administrative Procedures Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following coment with our recommendation is made.
/
Comment The 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. Although it is a repeat finding from previous reviews, Nevada still has not developed written procedures covering the internal processing of license applications, inspection and enforcement policies and precedures, license termination, instrument calibration or low-level waste site inspections.
The RCP also had no administrative procedures for maintaining regulatory guides or other documents furnished by the NRC, for tracking licensing or enforcement actions or for keeping up-to-date inspection records. The need for these procedures was evidenced by program discrepancies in both licensing and compliance.
Recommendation We recommend the State develop and use written internal procedures for the program functions specified above.
II.
Licensing A.
Licensing Procedures i
Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following comments are made with our recommendations.
1.
Comment The Radiation Control Program (RCP) should have internal l
licensing guides, checklists and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice. Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC standard license conditions should be used to expedite and provide uniformity in the licensing process.
The State did not have internal licensing guides, nor j
did they have a workable set of NRC guides; no checklists or standard license formats had been developed; standard license i
l conditions had not been established; policy memoranda from the l
Office of State Programs had not been retained, reviewed and assimilated into standard operating procedures; the SS&D
I 2
Registry had not been updated since March 1985.
The failure to provide the necessary guidance to reviewers relates to the license deficiencies noted below.
NRC technical assistance was given during the review to the staff to help organize the policy memoranda, regulatory guides, SS&D sheets, standard review plans and other documents furnished by the NRC into a workable order.
Recommendation We recommend the State develop internal licensing procedures including standard license conditions, licensing guides, checklists and model licenses.
2.
Comment License applicants should be furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.
No regulatory guides are available for applicants in Nevada.
This is a repeat finding from the previous review.
Recommendation We recommend all applicants, including applicants for renewals, be furnished with copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.
3.
Comment Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information and documentation of discussions and visits.
Many licensing files were not in the proper drawers, information was missing from the files and documentation of telephone discussions was not always maintained.
The RCP had no system for tracking incoming licensing actions, and there was no Method to determine the number of cases pending in-house.
NRC technical assistance was given during the review to set up a tracking system for licensing actions.
Recommendation We recommend the RCP implement procedures for maintaining the files in the proper manner.
B.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator.
The following significant comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The RCP should assure that essential elements of applications have been submitted to the agency, and which meet current regulatory l
1
-]
3 L
guidance for describing the isotopes and quantities to be used, c
qualifications of persons who will use material facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions.
Licenses should be clear, complete and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, authorized uses, and permissive or restrictive conditions.
The following discrepancies were noted in reviewing the license files:
a.
The State authorized a radiographer to use a source without checking the SS&D catalog.
A source of identical design had been involved in a radiation incident resulting in radiation injuries to members of the public and approval to use this design was withdrawn 5 years ago.
b.
The same ir;dustrial radiographer had been granted an exemption from posting high radiation areas without supporting justification.
J c.
A company was issued a license in lieu of proper enforcement action.
A gauge with the shutter open which had been abandoned by a bankrupt licensee was found during an inspection of the.
j premises during a routine inspection.
Rather than impound the source, the State issued a license for storage purposes to the new property owners who did not want it, did not submit an application and had no authorized users, with the stipulation the new owners dispose of the source.
d.
A physician was authorized to use licensed material without submitting proper evidence of his qualifications.
e.
The use of 30 mci of I-131 in unsealed form was authorized without requiring use of a hood or a bioassay program.
f.
The use of radioactive Xenon gas was authorized without a safety evaluation of the ventilation system for the places of-7 l
use.
l g.
A license that was suspended for cause was reinstated without i
evidence that qualified users were available.
Recommendation The recommendations submitted for licensing procedures, if followed, should prevent recurrence of these and similar deficiencies.
We recommend the staff adhere to the regulatory guidance applicable to the license under consideration, and we recommend second party and/or thorough supervisory review of all licensing actions. With respect to the specific deficiencies cited, we recommend prompt licensing and enforcement actions, as appropriate, to correct them.
L.... -
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 2 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 at 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 response, and may perform a follow-up review of the program within six months. If the State program has not improved or it additional deficiencies have 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.
WE2m UNITED STATES o
E" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
'f j
REGION V 1450 MARIA LANE,SUlTE 210 P,,
,@f WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 JAN 5 1987 Mr. Jerry Griepentrog, Director Department of Human Resources 505 E. King Street, Room 600 Carson City, Nevada 89710
Dear Mr. Griepentrog:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack Hornor, Region V State Agreements Representative, held with Mr. Lawrence Matheis, Administrator, Health Division, and other members of your staff on November 20, 1986, following our review of the State's radiation control program.
Based on the results of our review, we are withholding a determination of adequacy and compatibility for the program pending our receipt and evaluation of the State's corrective actions for addressing two deficiencies with Category I indicators as defined in the NRC " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs", published in the Federal Register on December 4, 1981.
The minor problems noted in these areas during our 1985 review have become more serious.
Enforcement is a Category I Indicator. Enforcement actions should be timely and should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance.
Several cases were found in which the indicated enforcement action was either not taken or its effectiveness was reduced because the State's action was not timely.
One example that illustrates the seriousness of this issue is the handling of the University of Nevada case. An inspection in June, 1986, resulted in numerous items of non-compliance, several of whicn were repeat violations. Although a letter has been drafted by your staff noting that the licensee's response and corrective actions presented during an enforcement conference in August, 1986, was not satisfactory, no further action has been taken.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator. In several cases, the State issued licenses that were not compatible with policies of the NRC and which had potential health and safety implications.
Specific problem areas are detailed in Enclosure 1.
We believe the lack of suitable administrative and technical procedures is an underlying factor in both findings.
The lack of written procedures has been identified as a deficiency in the program in the past two reviews, but no significant action has been taken by the State to develop and implement such procedures.
In addition, it has been the experience of the NRC and other Agreement States that it is necessary to maintain a professional staffing ratio of from 1.0 to 1.5 person years per 100 licenses, excluding the staff necessary to maintain the low-level waste program.
Nevada's staffing level for radioactive materials is now 0.75 person years per 100 licenses.
We are concerned that the failure to maintain an adequate staffing level will cause further problems
. JAN 5 1987 in program effectiveness and preclude the development of procedures and staff training necessary to correct program deficiencies. cnntains additional comments regarding the technical aspects of our, review of,the program.
These comments were discussed with Mr. Marshall during our exit meeting with him.
Due to the serious nature of these problems, we are asking for your prompt response setting forth the actions to be taken and the time for completion. We plan a follow-up review within six months to evaluate the progress made. At that time we expect to be in a position to decide what finding should be made concerning the adequacy and compatibility of the radiation control program.
The Nevada low-level radioactive waste program was also discussed.
Dr. Malcolm Knapp and Mrs. Kathleen Schneider from NRC headquarters were present to discuss this matter. We understand you wish to renew the license for the disposal site with NRC concurrence, as soon as possible.
Current guidelines, possible technical assistance and expected manpower requirements were the main topics discussed with the staff and summarized with Mr. Matheis.
We will send the latest NRC guidelines and other technical references pertaining to existing low-level radioactive waste sites under separate cover. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. 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 and my staff during the review.
Sin rely, John B. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. Lawrence Matheis, Administrator, Health Division Mr. Stanley Marshall, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section State of Nevada Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room (Code SP01)
Mr. G. Wayne Kerr, Director OSP
ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE NEVADA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS 1.
Management and Administration Administrative Procedures Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The 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. Although it is a repeat finding from previous reviews, Nevada still has not developed written procedures covering the internal processing of license applications, inspection and enforcement policies and procedures, license termination, instrument calibration or low-level waste site inspections.
The RCP also had no administrative procedures for maintaining regulatory guides or other documents furnished by the NRC, for tracking licensing or enforcement actions or for keeping up-to-date inspection records. The need for these procedures was evidenced by prcgram discrepancies in both licensing and compliance.
Recommendation We recommend the State develop and use written internal procedures for the program functions specified above.
II.
Licensing A.
Licensing Procedures Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following comments are made with our recommendations.
1.
Comment The Radiation Control Program (RCP) should have internal licensing guides, checklists and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice. Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC standard license conditions should be used to expedite and provide uniformity in the licensing process.
The State did not have internal licensing guides, nor did they have a workable set of NRC guides; no checklists or standard license formats had been developed; standard license conditions had not been established; policy memoranda from the Office of State Programs had not been retained, reviewed and assimilated into standard operating procedures; the SS&D
. - -. ~
- - - - - ~., -.
s 2
Registry had not been updated since March 1985.
The failure to provide the necessary guidance to reviewers relates to the license deficiencies noted below.
NRC technical assistance was given during the review to the staff to help organize the policy memoranda, regulatory guides, SS&D sheets, standard review plans and other documents furnished by the NRC into a workable order.
Recommendation We recommend the State develop internal licensing procedures including standard license conditions, licensing guides, checklists and model licensos.
2.
Comment License applicants should be furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.
No regulatory guides are available for applicants in Nevada.
This is a repeat finding from the previous review.
Recommendation We recommend all applicants, including applicants for renewals, be furnished with copies of applicable guides and regulatory posi' 3.
Comment Files shculd be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information and documentation of discussions and visits.
Many licensing files were not in the proper drawers, information was missing from the files and documentation of telephone discussions was not always maintained. The RCP had no system for tracking incoming licensing actions, and there was no method to determine the number of cases pending in-house.
NRC technical assistance was given during the review to set up a tracking system for licensing actions.
Recommendation We recommend the RCP implement procedures for maintaining the files in the proper manner.
B.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator.
The following significant comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The RCP should assure that essential elements of applications have been submitted to the agency, and which meet current regulatory
3 guidance for describing the isotopes and quantities to be used, qualifications of persons who will use material facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions.
Licenses should be clear, complete and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, authorized uses, and permissive or restrictive conditions.
The following discrepancies were noted in reviewing the license files:
a.
The State authorized a radiographer to use a source without checking the SS&D catalog.
A source of identical design had been involved in a radiation incident resulting in radiation injuries to members of the public and approval to use this design was withdrawn 5 years ago.
b.
The same industrial radiographer had been granted an exemption from posting high radiation areas without supporting justification.
c.
A company was issued a license in lieu of proper enforcement action. A gauge with the shutter open which had been abandoned by a bankrupt licensee was found during an inspection of the premises during a routine inspection.
Rather than impound the source, the State issued a license for storage purposes to the new property owners who did not want it, did not submit an application and had no authorized users,'with the stipulation the new owners dispose of the source.
d.
A physician was authorized to use licensed material without submitting proper evidence of his qualifications.
e.
The use of 30 mci of I-131 in unsealed form was authorized witnout requiring use of a hood or a bioassay program.
f.
The use of radioactive Xenon gas was authorized without a safety evaluation of the ventilation system for the places of use.
g.
A license that was suspended for cause was reinstated without evidence that qualified users were available.
Recommendation The recommendations submitted for licensing procedures, if followed, should prevent recurrence of these and similar deficiencies. We recommend the staff adhere to the regulatory guidance applicable to the license under consideration, and we recommend second party l
and/or thorough supervisory review of all licensing actions. With I
respect to the specific deficiencies cited, we recommend prompt licensing and enforcement actions, as appropriate, to correct them.
e ENCLOSURE 2 APFLICATION 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 2 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 4
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 pcrformance 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 at that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category I Indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following i
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 corment is provided, the State will be notified that the l
program deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority basic. When more than,one significant Category I comment is provided, l
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 follow-up review of the program within six months. If the State program has not improved or it additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement. Category l.
11 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.
1 I
I
- f UNITED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
o
,E REGION V T
1450 MARI A LANE, SulTE 210 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNI A 94596 g "V JAN 5 1987
.Mr. Jerry Griepentrog, Director Department of Human Resources 505 E. King Street, Room 600 Carson City, Nevada 89710
Dear Mr. Griepentrog:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack Hornor, Region V State Agreements Representative, held with Mr. Lawrence Matheis, Administrator, Health Division, and other members of your staff on November 20, 1986, following our review of the State's radiation control program.
Based on the results of our review, we are withholding a determination of adequacy and compatibility for the program pending our receipt and evaluation of the State's corrective actions for addressing two deficiencies with Category I indicators as defined in the NRC " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs", published in the Federal Register on December 4, 1981.
The minor problems noted in these areas during our 1985 review have become more serious.
Enforcement is a Category I Indicator. Enforcement actions should be timely and should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance.
Several cases were found in which the indicated enforcement action was either not taken or its effectiveness was reduced because the State's action was not timely.
One example that illustrates the seriousness of this issue is the handling of the University of Nevada case.
An inspection in June, 1986, resulted in numerous items of non-compliance, several of which were repeat violations.
Although a letter has been drafted by your staff noting that the licensee's response and corrective actions presented during an enforcement conference in August,1986, was not satisfactory, no further action has been taken.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator. In several l
cases, the State issued licenses that were not compatible with policies of the NRC and which had potential health and safety implications.
Specific problem areas are detailed in Enclosure 1.
l We believe the lack of suitable administrative and technical procedures is an I
underlying factor in both findings. The lack of written procedures has been identified as a deficiency in the program in the past two reviews, but no l
significant action has been taken by the State to develop and implement such procedures.
1 In addition, it has been the experience of the NRC and other Agreement States that it is necessary to maintain a professional staffing ratio of from 1.0 to 1.5 person years per 100 licenses, excluding the staff necessary to maintain the low-level waste program.
Nevada's staffing level for radioactive materials is now 0.75 person years per 100 licenses. We are concerned that the failure to maintain an adequate staffing level will cause further problems I
. JAN 5 1987
-in program effectiveness and preclude the development of procedures and staff training necessary to correct program deficiencies.
' contains additional comments regarding the technical aspects of our review of the program.
These comments were discussed with Mr. Marshall during our exit meeting with him.
Due to the serious nature of these problems,.we are askirg fcr your prompt response setting forth the actions to be taken and the time for completion. We plan a follow-up review within six months to evaluate the progress made. At that time we expect to be in a position to decide what finding should be made
]
concerning the adequacy and compatibility of the radiation control program.
The Nevada low-level radioactive waste program was also discussed.
Dr. Malcolm Knapp and Mrs. Kathleen Schneider from NRC headquarters were present to discuss this matter. We understand you wish to renew the license for the disposal site with NRC concurrence, as soon as possible.
Current guidelines, possible technical assistance and expected manpower requirements were the main topics discussed with the staff and summarized with Mr. Matheis.
We will send the latest NRC guidelines and other technical references pertaining to existing low-level radioactive waste sites under separate cover. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. 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 4
and my staff during the review.
Sin rely, John B. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. Lawrence Matheis, Administrator, Health Division Mr. Stanley Marshall, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section State of Nevada Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room (Code SP01)
Mr. G. Wayne Kerr, Director OSP
4-1 e
ENCLOSURE 1 t
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE NEVADA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I.
Management and Administration Administrative Procedures i
Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following i
comment with our recommendation is made.
/
Comment The 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. Although it is a repeat finding from previous reviews, Nevada still has not developed written procedures covering the internal processing of license applications, inspection and enforcement policies and procedures, license termination, instrument calibration or low-level waste site inspections.
The RCP also had no administrative procedures for maintaining regulatory l
guides or other documents furnished by the NRC, for tracking licensing or i
enforcement actions or for keeping up-to-date inspection records. The need for these procedures was evidenced by program discrepancies in both licensing and compliance.
Recommendation l
We recommend the State develop and use written internal procedures for the program functions specified above.
l II.
Licensing
(
A.
Licensing Procedures I-l Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following l
comments are made' with our recommendations.
1.
Comment i
The Radiation Control Program (RCP) should have internal l
licensing guides, checklists and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice. Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC standard license conditions should i
be used to expedite and provide uniformity in the licensing l
process.
The State did not have internal licensing guides, nor did they have a workable set of NRC guides; no checklists or standard license formats had been developed; standard license conditions had not been established; policy memoranda from the Office of State Programs had not been retained, reviewed and assimilated into standard operating procedures; the SS&D i
_ _ - - _ -. _ _... - ~ _. _ _ _ _.. _ _ - _... _ - ~ _ _ _ _ -. _. _, _., -. _ _,, - -
2 l
Registry had not been updated since March 1985. The failure to
(
provide the necessary guidance to reviewers relates to the license deficiencies noted below.
NRC technical assistance was given during the review to the staff to help organize the policy memoranda, regulatory guides, SS&D sheets, standard review plans and other documents furnished by the NRC into a workable order.
Recommendation We recommend the State develop internal licensing procedures including standard license conditions, licensing guides, checklists and model licenses.
2.
Comment License applicants should be furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.
No regulatory guides are available for applicants in Nevada. This is a repeat finding from the previous review.
I Recommendation We recommend all applicants, including applicants for renewals, be furnished with copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.
3.
Comment Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information and documentation of discussions and visits.
Many licensing files were not in the proper dra.iers, information was missing from the files and documentation of telephone discussions was not always maintained. The RCP had no system for tracking incoming licensing actions, and there was no method to determine the number of cases pending in-house.
NRC technical assistance was given during the review to set up a tracking system for licensing actions.
Recommendation We recommend the RCP implement procedures for maintaining the files in the proper manner.
B.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator.
The following significant comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment lhe RCP should assure that essential elements of applications have been submitted to the agency, and which meet current regulatory
3 guidance for describing the isotopes and quantities to be used, qualifications of persons who will use material facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions.
Licenses should be clear, complete and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, authorized uses, and permissive or restrictive conditions. The following discrepancies were noted in reviewing the license files:
a.
The State authorized a radiographer to use a source without checking the SS&D catalog.
A source of identical design had been involved in a radiation incident resulting in radiation injuries to members of the public and approval to use this design was withdrawn 5 years ago.
b.
The same industrial radiographer had been granted an exemption from posting high radiation areas without supporting justification, c.
A company was issued a license in lieu of proper enforcement action. A gauge with the shutter open which had been abandoned by a bankrupt licensee was found during an inspection of the premises during a routine inspection.
Rather than impound the source, the State issued a license for storage purposes to the new property owners who did not want it, did not submit an application and had no authorized users, with the stipulation the new owners dispose of the source.
d.
A physician was authorized to use licensed material without submitting proper evidence of his qualifications.
e.
The use of 30 mci of I-131 in unsealed form was authorized without requiring use of a hood or a bioassay program.
f.
The use of radioactive Xenon gas was authorized without a safety evaluation of the ventilation system for the places of use.
g.
A license that was suspended for cause was reinstated without evidence that qualified users were available.
Recommendation The recommendations submitted for licensing procedures, if followed, should prevent recurrence of these and similar deficiencies. We recommend the staff adhere to the regulatory guidance applicable to the license under consideration, and we recommend second party and/or thorough supervisory review of all licensing actions. With respect to the specific deficiencies cited, we recommend prompt licensing and enforcement actions, as appropriate, to correct them.
. -