ML20245B930
| ML20245B930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/21/1989 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Kizer K CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904260385 | |
| Download: ML20245B930 (7) | |
Text
$
'em jg UNITED STATES "8
NUCL EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 April 21, 1989 Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer, Director California. Department of Health Services 714.P Street Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Dr. Kizer:
This is to confirm the discuss' ion Messrs. Jack Hornor, Joel. Lubenau and Steven Baggett held with you and your staff on March 10, 1989, following the conclusion of our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control program.
As a. result of our review of the Department's program and the routine exchange'of information between the NRC and the State, the staff believes that the California l program for regulating agreement materials is adequate e
to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program.
We were pleased to find the State's program continuing to improve under your_ direction. The State -is to be commended particularly in. the aggressive policy.of escalated enforcement actions against licensees who have repeatedly used radioactive materials in an unsafe manner or in violation of the regulations. We_were also pleased with the manner in which your staff responded to incidents involving radioactive materials and the thoroughness of the incident investigations.
The review revealed three items which we feel needs your personal ettention.
1.
-The' program's backlog of overdue inspections may build up to a point of health and-safety concerns. Although there are currently r.o inspections overdue by more than fifty percent of their scheduled frequency..there are approximately 560 inspections currently due and with the program's limited resources a significant inspection
-backlog buildup will be difficult to avoid.
2..
With respect to the staffing, we are concerned that the program has five technical positions that are funded but are not filled because of cumbersome personnel hiring practices. Problems with the personnel E
department's maintenance of their approved hiring list have been ongoing for several years in Californ'ia and our staff feels upper management ntust intervene with a solution if:the State is to be competitive in hiring qualified technical staff.
Improving the hirirg practices and 4 implementor.g Go recently approved $200 monthly f
c, alary differential for recruiting and retaining technical staff 1
should help alla:viate this concern.
1 i
3.
Additionally we learned that, following the review, the Radiological Health Branch Chief tendered his resignation to accept an offer to relocate to the east coast. This key management position needs q
to be filled on a priority basis.
$$RW DC
)
~
APR 211989 Dr. Kinneth W. Kizer - contains comments regarding the technical aspects of the review.
These coments were discussed with Mr. McGurk during our exit meeting with him and you may wish to have Mr. McGurk address the Enclosure 1 coments. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs.
In accordance with NRC practice, I am also enclosing a second 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 the NRC staff during the review.
Sincerely, original signed by Carlton Kammerer Carlton Kamerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
V. Stello, Executive Director for Operations J. Martin, Regional Administrator H. Collins, Deputy Director of Public Health, State of California J. McGurk, Chief, Environmental Health Division, State of California D. Womeldorf, Chief, Environmental Management Brarch, State of California P. Szalinski, Chief, Radiological Health Branch, State of California NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room Charles R. Imbrecht, State Liaison Officer bec: Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Distribution:
I SA FF YMiller SBaggett, IMNS/NMSS Dir RF JHornor, RV R5LO RSA0 State File i
CKammerer DCD(SP01) s SSchwartz EDO RF
.T!
- See previous concurrence
('
/o
,I
/
':p....:SLITP:D
.:..gg T:EDO.. :..f..,..
- GP
)FC :RV
- RV
- RV
- SLITP:AD
- 5 F
3..__:..........:_........:...........:...........:.
y ZAME :JMartin
- JHornor :RScarano
- VMiller
- 'Sch artz Kam er :
n
- VStello
..___..:._........:.__h....:........
3....:._____....:.....__..:.___.......:___.......
/[8/89
- 4/
/89:4// /89 RATE :3/20/89* :3/20/89* :3/20/89*
- 3/31/89*
4/
/89
n
^
L l
w L
\\
s Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer )
Enclosure l contains comments regarding the technical aspects of the review.
'These coments Wre discussed with Mr. McGurk during our exit meeting with him and you_ may wish te have Mr. McGurk address the Enclosure 1 coments. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for 1
l reviewing agreement State programs.
j N
'In accordance.with'NRC practice, I am also enclosing a second copy of this
. letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be Y
made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to the NRC staff-during the review.
Sincerely,
. Carlton Kamerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
~
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
.V. Stello, Executive Director for Operations J. Martin, Regional = Administrator H. Collins, Deputy Director of Public Health, State of California J. McGurk, Chief, Environmental Health Division, State of California D. Womeldorf, Chief. Environmental Management Branch, State of California P. Szalinski, Chief, Radiological Health' Branch, State of California NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room bec: Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts
' Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curti Distribution:
a SA RF iller Dir RF JHornor, RV RSA0 State File CKammerer-DCD (SP01)
Q RF JFC :RV
- RV
- RV
{$( g AD
- 5LITP:DD
- 5LITP:D
- GPA
- EDO 4AME :JMartin
- JHornor :RScarano diti r
- SSchwartz
- CKammerer :HDenton :VStello
.....:..........:.........:...........:.y..r-------:------------:- ---------:3/
/89:3/ /89
) ATE :3/'
/89
- 3/ /89 :3/
/89
- 3/31/89
- 3/
/89
- 3/ /89
L.'.
1 ENCLOSURE 1 COMMEETS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE CALIFORNIA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS 1.
MANAGEMENT.AND ADMINISTRATION A.
Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment with our recommendation is made.
Coment The State's Emergency Plan should clearly specify qualified persons responsible for initiating response actions, conducting operations and supervising cleanup. The Radiologic Health Branch (RHB), with other State and local agencies working under contracts with the RHB, has an excellent record of responding to incidents in the past.
Responsibility for emergency planning has been reassigned to the Environmental Management Branch (EMB), and new emergency procedures for this are being written but are not finalized. During our review we found that a new emergency call list was recently distributed before the procedures were approved by management and before the new primary responders were trained i
in the new procedures.
Recommendation During the review, the State temporarily resolved the problem by changing the primary responding list to include only previously qualified staff. At our suggestion, a steering committee made up of the Environmental Health Division Chief and the two Branch Chiefs was established to coordinate emergency response and other activities requiring coordination between the two branches.
We would appreciate being kept informed of the activities of their Comittee and the staff's view of its effectiveness.
As agreed to during the review, the State is requested to provide the NRC with a written action plan for developing the new emergency procedures. The action plan will include the method of selecting and training qualified responders as well as the operating plan and distribution list.
B.
Office Equipment and Support Services is a Category II Indicator.
The following coment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The RCP should have adequate secretarial and clerical support, and files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information. Approximately a third of the files are stacked in boxes because of the lack of filing cabinets.
2 1
Also many licensing and compliance files were in disarray and I
essential information was sometimes missing or difficult to i
locate. There has been large turnover of clerical staff, and I
according to our observations, the new staff has not been
{
adequately trained. Also, there are currently five funded vacancies in the clerical staff.
Recommendation 1
We recommend, first, that filing cabinets be acquired to j
accommodate all files. Next, management should investigate the i
reasons for the large clerical st3ff turnover and resolve problems contributing to it, fill the vacancies, and provide adequate training for new staff.
II. LICENSING A.
Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The RCP should have licensing guides, checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice.
Inconsistencies were found in license files handled by the two licensing groups, such as failure to include necessary backup information in all SS&D evaluations, and failure to account for the disposition of radioactive material in license terminations which indicate the State's licensing procedures need further refinement, coordination and full implementation. With respect to specific license cases, we acknowledge the State's prompt action to institute corrective measures in those cases where a potentially significant health and safety problem was identified.
Recommendation We recommend the licensing policy and procedures manual be completed and used by both senior reviewers and all staff.
Written temporary procedures should be issued as new questions arise until a procedure or policy is established.
III. COMPLIANCE A.
Inspection Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment Inspection guides, consistent with current NRC guidance, should l
be used by inspectors to assure uniform and complete inspection practices. There were inconsistencies in the inspection reports from different inspection agencies and some of the forms currently in use are not complete.
For instance, the form used for industrial radiographer inspections does not include field i
l i
3
-inspection data, and the files did not indicate field inspections are being conducted.- This is contrary to the State's policy and contrary to the NRC policy of conducting field inspections on a minimum of 25% of radiographer inspections.
Recommendation We recomend the State further refine existing procedures and inspection forms and develop new procedures as necessary. The new forms and procedures 5hould be distributed to all contracting agencies with a specific date for implementation.
I J
l' l
l L_______--
o
)
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Xgreement State Radiation Control Programs" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guidelines provide 29 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 j
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 and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant Category I comments are provided, the State will be notified that the program i
deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas is. critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confinned in a subsequent review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
ho significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Commission will be informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State 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 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 of the Act, as amended, i
.._ _ _.~. _.~ __
__