ML20235E633
| ML20235E633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/07/1987 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Griepentrog J NEVADA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707130033 | |
| Download: ML20235E633 (7) | |
Text
-
5PbI e .
&# % UNITED STA1ES
- , e & NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
....+ JUL 0 71987 Mr. Jerry Griepentrog, Director j Department of Human Resources 505 East King Street, Room 600 Carson City, Nevada 89710
Dear Mr. Griepentrog:
1 This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Jack Hornor, Region V State Agreement Representative, held with you and Mr. William Schneider, Chief, Bureau of Regulatory Health Services, on June 5,1987, following the conclusion of our follow-up review which was made to determine the progress made in achieving improvements in the State's radiation control program which you committed to as a result of our routine program review in November, 1986.
Based on the results of our follow-up review, we are continuing to withhold a determination of adequacy and compatibility for the program pending further corrective actions in the compliance program. Although improvements were noted in some areas of concern identified during the November review, satisfactory actions were not taken on all items addressed in the exit meetings and correspondence. In particular, deficiencies remain in enforcement while additional problems were found in the status of the inspection program. These are both Category I indicators as defined in the NRC " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs." ,
During our last review, we found several cases of inadequate enforcement actions and commented that your enforcement policy should provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance. During the follow-up review, examination of the records of the low-level waste site showed no enforcement action taken in ninety percent of over 100 violations found during the past year. This inadequacy appears to be directly related to i the lack of a definitive enforcement policy indicating the proper j measures to be taken at each severity level.
A new concern is the status of the State's inspection program. The NRC and the State require initial inspections of higher priority licensees six months after the license is issued. Nevada now has five initial inspections overdue, four by more than fifty percent of the six month interval.
8707130033 870707 PDR STPRG ESGN b\
t Y
Mr. Jerry Griepentrog Following our November 1986 review, we also expressed concern that the failure to maintain an adequate staffing level would cause further problems in program effectiveness, and it appears this is indeed the case. Excluding the waste site, Nevada's staffing level had dropped to 0.41 person years per 100 licenses, or less than half the 1.0 to I.5 ratio contained in the NRC guidelines. We understand you are in the process of filling one vacancy and have requested legislative approval for two more positions. We urge you to expedite the hiring and training of the new personnel.
In addition to inadequate staffing, we feel an underlying factor in the -
problems appearing in the program relates to a Category II Indicator, Management. Pursuant to our guidelines, program management should assess workload trends, resources and changes in legislative and regulatory responsibilities to forecast program needs. Periodically, we send letters to the program directors of all Agreement States containing technical information, changes in legislative and regulatory ..
responsibilities, policy directives and other items of mutual interest. :
The Nevada radiation control program manager has not made a practice of reading such letters and therefore had not taken the appropriate actions regarding such important matters as establishing controls over redistribution of medical radionuclides generators, instituting new inspection procedures and priorities, and new incident reporting requirements. He also was not aware of all administrative and technical procedures that had been developed by his staff since the last review.
Greater management attention to the functioning of the radiation control program is needed.
On January 7, 1987, Messrs. Scarano and Hornor of our Region V office met with you in your office. During that meeting, Mr. Scarano noted that high level management attention was necessary to turn the Nevada .
radiation control program around. We are disappointed to note that the follow-up review of your program, as noted above, indicates that your program has further deteriorated. As you know, our regional staff has worked closely with your staff to help improve the Nevada radiation control program. In addition to frequent telephone consultation and sharing of NRC administrative and technical guides, regional staff, in November 1986, met with the program supervisor in Carson City and provided on-site assistance to improve the supervision and management of the program. I am certain there exists a mutual desire for Nevada to have an exemplary radiation control program. I continue to offer any reasonable training and technical assistance that you might need to assure a successful program. As training and technical assistance needs are identified, please make them known to our Regional Administrator.
Enclosure 1 identifies items not satisfactorily resolved from the last review and contains further details and additional comments regarding the technical aspects of our review of the program. These comments were discussed with Mr. Stanley Marshall during our exit meeting with him.
8 Mr. Jerry Griepentrog We would appreciate your reviewing our coments and we ask that you reply with your specific plans to improve the agreement materials program.
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 l be made available for public review. We are encouraged by your commitments to Mr. Hornor to deal effectively with the problems areas identified.
On April 12, 1987, NRC reorganized its staff. The State Agreements Program is now a part of the new Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reports to the Comission. One purpose of this organizational change was to provide an improved focus for NRC relationships with the States. Our regional offices will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory programs. We encourage you and your staff to continue to look to the Regional Administrator and his staff as the primary contact with the NRC.
Sincerely a ~ae Carlton Ka er r, Director )
State, Local and Indian J Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr ,
Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC William C. Schneider, Nevada Stanley R. Marshall, Nevada John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV NRC Public Document Room
i i
1 1
ENCLOSURE 1 l COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE NEVADA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION A. Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The l following comment with our recommendation in made. '
Coment The guidelines call for the radiation control program to 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. The State, in response to our recommendation following the last review, began developing written administrative procedures and working drafts had been completed for some licensing and compliance functions. However, there are still no written l procedures for enforcement policies, instrument calibration, license termination or low-level waste site inspections.
Recommendation We recommend the State review the suggested content for ;
administrative procedures outlined in the All Agreement State 1 letter dated May 13, 1987, and complete the written procedures ,
as suggested.
II. LICENSING A. Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment is made with our recommendation.
Coment ,
The RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice.
After the last review, when many inadequacies were found in
, the licensing procedures, the staff began to use NRC licensing l
guides and completed working drafts of other procedures.
l However, the State does not use licensing checklists to ensure l that all elements of the application have been submitted and that the license is complete.
Recommendation We recomend licensing checklists be developed, used by reviewers and retained in the license file to assist in future reviews of the license. Copies of NRC checklists were again given to program management.
B. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator. The following comments refer to comments and recommendations made following our previous review, but for which the State had not taken adequate corrective action.
Comment A physician user was authorized without submitting proper qualifications. The State contended in their reply that the physician had previously been authorized for use of radioactive material under another Nevada license.
Examination of that file revealed he had also been approved in that case without submitting evidence of his qualifications.
The brief statement of his past experience found in the file referred to his working under a third Nevada license and in that letter he asked that that group of physicians not be contacted because they were unhappy with his leaving.
Examination of that license file did not show him as an authorized user.
Recommendation We recommend the State request that the physician submit the proper evidence of his qualifications for use of radioactive materials.
Comment The use of 30 mci of I-131 in unsealed form was authorized without requiring use of a hood and a bioassay program. This comment was overlooked by the State and no action was tsken.
Recommendation We recommend the State ask the licensee to furnish evidence of adequate facilities, procedures and bioassay requirements. ,
III. COMPLIANCE A. Status of Inspection Program is a Category I Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment As indicated in the guidelines, the radiation control program should maintain statistics which are adequate to permit program management to assess the status of the inspection program on a periodic basis. The inspection tracking system in Nevada is maintained manually using a card file. During this review, randomly selected files were examined and checked against the information shown in the card file. Eight of the thirty-four records examined revealed
4 i
errors or omissions in the card file. Also, five initial inspections were found to be overdue and two of those had apparently not been entered in the tracking system.
Recommendation We suggest a new tracking system be developed or the card file be corrected and updated by checking it against each compliance and license file. We also recommend the State develop an action plan to eliminate the backlog of overdue initial inspections. This plan should be in writing and should contain milestones with dates for expected progress.
B. Enforcement Procedures is a Category I Indicator. The following significant comments are made with our recommendations.
Comment Licensee responses to enforcement letters should be promptly acknowledged as to adequacy and resolution of previously unresolved items.
- 1. One important issue in the last review pertained to the handling of the University of Nevada inspection and enforcement case. An inspection in June 1986 resulted in l numerous items of non-compliance that had not been I satisfactorily resolved at the time of our November 1 review. Since that time, several deficiency letters and responses have been exchanged, and an enforcement i conference with University officials was held in February i 1987. However, the response from the University dated April 10,1987, is still awaiting management review and '
evaluation.
Recommendation We recomend program management take immediate action to evaluate the University's response and send the appropriate reply. The State should also proceed with the next routine inspection which is now due.
- 2. In reviewing the files, six additional cases were found in which the acknowledgement letter was more than thirty days overdue, with some several months overdue.
Failure to promptly acknowledge licensee responses was also a finding during the November review, Recommendation Again, we recommend the State bring their enforcement tracking system up to date and take prompt action on all enforcement correspondence.
.- l 1
1 Enclosure 2 ,
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreoment State Radiation Control Programs," were published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1987 as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 29 Indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas. Guidance as to their relative impnrtance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the Indicators into 2 categories. l l 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 one or more Category I indicator areas, i
, then the need for improvements may be critical.
Category II indicators address program functions which provide essential 1 technical and administrative support for the primary program functions. j i
Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is j 1 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 j indicators. Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify !
underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties l in Category I indicators, j 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 coment made. If no significant Category *
! I coments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate l to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's ,
program. If one or more significant Category I coments are provided, !
, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously j l affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and - '
that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical. !
l If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I coments, the ;
i staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or !
defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their l effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review. If additional i information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may i request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a i follow-up cr special, limited review. NRC staff may hold a special i meeting with appropriate State representatives. No significant items i will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Comission will be ,
l infomed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State 1 l programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If the' State program does not i improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with section 274j or the Act.
1