ML20211C070
| ML20211C070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/06/1986 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Kirk P NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606120225 | |
| Download: ML20211C070 (5) | |
Text
n 1
=
UNITED ST ATts
- ga mas NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
c
[
REGION il
[
p g
l 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
t ATLANTA, GkORGIA 30%21
\\...../
J M 0 6 1986 Mr. Phillip J. Kirk, Jr., Secretary Department of Human Resources Albennarle Building 325 North Salisburg Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, NRC State Agreements Representative, held on April 18, 19S6, with you, Dr.,liines, and Messrs. I. D. Wilkerson, Jr., and Dayne H. Brown following our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control program.
As a result of our review of the State's progran and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Connission and the State of North Carolina, the staff determined that overal) the North Carolina program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the put;lic healt.h and safety and is compatible with the Conunissicq's program. However, the staff also noted the need for iniprovement as noted belcyt.
One area of continuing concern is the organizational staffing level.
Staffing level is a Category II Jndicator.
At the time of the review the State had one vacancy in the materials program, and we understand that this position was being filled.
Hcwever, with all positions filled, the staffing leye1 is only 0,92 perspn-year per 100 licenses, which is belcw our recomended guide of 1.0 to 1.5 person-years per 100 licenses.
Although the State has supported staff increases following previous reviews, the licensing and compliance activities have increased frcm 45611cerses in April of 1983 to 491 licenses in April of 1986,.
Therefore, in view of this continued increased workload, we reconenend that the i
staffing lesel be increased to our suggested range.
We would appreciate your review of our reconriendation and receiving your specific plan to improve the agrecnent materials program. Enclosure 1 contains additional f:ownents r6garding the technical aspects of our review of the program.
These comments were discussed with Mr. Brown during our exit meeting with him.
Mr. Brown was advised at the time that a response to these findin0s Fould be requested by this office and you inay wish to have Mr. Brown address the
' conenents. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreerent State programs.
Enclesure 3 is a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or othemise to be made available for public review.
8606120225 860606 PDR STPRQ ESGNC PDR L
r Phillip J. Kirk 2
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Woodruff during the review.
Sincerely,
\\
\\
)
~
f J. Nelson Grace
.[
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1.
Consnents and Recommendations on Technical Aspects of the North Carolina Radiation Control Program for Agreement Materials 2.
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" 3.
Letter to Phillip J. Kirk from J. Nelson Grace, dated 5/06/86 cc w/encls:
I. O. Wilkerson, Jr., Director Division of Facility Services Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Section G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs, NRC
[NRCPublicDocumentRoom i
s
ENCLOSURE 1 COPMENTS AND RECOPMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I.
LICENSING Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our reconenendation is made.
COMMENT Standard license conditions and procedures comparable with current NRC standard license conditions and procedures should be used to expedite and provide uniformity in the licensing process.
1.
The standard " user" condition utilized for " private practitioners" stipulates that "... material shall be used by, or under the supervision of (the individual physician)." The phrase "... under the supervision of..." should be reserved for institutional licensees who may be authorized to train other physicians.
2.
Some of the State's " fixed gauge" licensees do not have an inventory requirement in their licenses.
The NRC uses a standard license condition (number 78, dated November 1985) on all fixed gauge licenses to require a six month inventory of all sources and devices received by the licensee.
REC 06 MEN 0ATION We reconsnend that the State utilize the following procedures:
1.
Licenses issued to individual physicians or practitioners should clearly indicate that the license does not authorize the individual user to train other physicians or practitioners in the use of the material.
2.
Licenses authorizing the use of " fixed gauges" should have a standard requirement to inventory all sources and devices received under the license.
!!. COMPLIANCE Inspection Reports is a Category II Indicator.
The following coninent with our reconsnendation is made.
COMMENT Inspection reports should be uniform and adequately document the results of inspections.
It was noted that inspection reports do not uniformly document 1
i 2
transportation requirements applicable to licensees or compliance with these requirements.
REC 0petENDATION We recommend that the State review their inspection report fonns, and revise them as appropriate to provide unifonn documentation of licensee compliance with transportation requiren~c;ts.
4 I
.)
)
a e
i i
k I
?
i i
. - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -. _ _ _ - -. - - _. _ ~... _. - - _ - -
ENCLOSURE 2 APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF AGREEEMENT 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 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 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 coment 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 en 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 imediate response, and may perform a follow-up review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement.
Category II coments 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
.