ML20246M901
| ML20246M901 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1989 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Mahan C FLORIDA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905190291 | |
| Download: ML20246M901 (7) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
b2D($b/
m m UNITED STATES '
4
,[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
- g
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 May 5, 1989 i
i Charles S. Mahan, M.D.
Deputy Secretary for Health and State Health Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32301
Dear Dr. Mahan:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff and Ms. B. J. Holt held with Mr. Edward A. Fever, Dr. Lyle E. Jerrett, Mr. J. Daniel Nash, and other selected members of the Radiation Control Staff on March 3, 1989, following our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control program.
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Florida, the staff determined that overall the Florida program for regulation l
of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Consnission's program.
.The NRC staff is pleased with several positive actions that Florida has implemented.
In particular, we noted that license and inspection fees are sufficient to fund the materials program; program management has implemented a procedure to perform pre-license visits on major licensees; selected new licenses are being hand delivered by the technical staff to the licensee to permit on-site evaluation of the licenser's f acility and safety program prior to the use of materials; and the State has no overdue inspections. We also noted that an annual training program has been initiated for the benefit of the technical staff and we were pleased to assist in presenting it. We believe these types of actions will enhance the effectiveness of your program to protect public health and safety.
There is one area of particular concern regarding staff continuity which I would like to bring to your attention.
This is a repeat connent from our 1985 and 1987 reviews. Staff turnover should be minimized by a combination of opportunities for promotion, training, and competitive salaries. Although the State has made considerable progress in this area during recent years, the State lost six trained staff persons since the last revi's. Salaries were listed as the primary cause for the staff losses. On Demnber 30, 1988, the Radiation Control Program submitted a request for a spec 51 " upward pay adjustment" for the Public Health Physicist class series. A response from i
the Department of Administration indicated that the Physicist classes would j
be included in a " pay equity" study. We fully support actions that will help minimize the turnover of your trained people. We would appreciate receiving your specific plans and comments regarding staff continuity in the Office of Radiation Control.
f hb NU o
i l
Charles S. Mahan, M.D.
2 MAY 5.1989 An explanation of our' policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 1.
~ inclosure 2 contains a sumary of the staff assessments and comments that u re developed from the other indicators used for review of the program.
Thise comments were discussed with Dr. Jerrett and his staff during our enit meeting with him. Dr. Jerrett was advised at the time that a response to these findings would be requested by this office and you may wish to have Dr. Jerrett address the Enclosure 2 coments and recommendations.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to our representatives during the review.
I am looking forward to your coments i
regarding staff continuity and Dr. Jerrett's responses.to the Enclosure 2 recommendations.
Sincerely, original siEned by Carlton Kammerer Carlton Kammerer, Director State, Loral and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
1.
Application of NRC Guidelines 2.
Sumary of Assessments and Coments cc:
'V. Stello, Executive Director for Distribution:
Operations, NRC SA RF S. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Dir RF l
Region II HDenton E. A. Fever, Deputy Director CKammerer for Health SSchwartz Florida Department of Health and VMiller RehabilitativeServices(HRS)
Florida State File Lyle E.'Jerrett, Ph.D Director DCD(SP01)
Office of Radiation Control, HRS EDO RF State Liaison Officer RWoodruff, RII l
NRC Public Document Room RTrojanowski, RII State Public Document Room EDO RF bec: Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss
- See previous concurrence.
- GP V
'UC :RII:5AR :RII:DRSS
- RII:RA
- 5LITP:AD :5LI DD
- 5}P:D
.... h..'.
gL l..:..___...:.___......:.........:..........:.
RAME:RWoodruff:JStohr
- SEbneter :VMiller
- S c tz : Ka rer
- HRDenton o
l I
L.._;.........:......___.:...__....:__....___.:.__N_....:...k/89......:.. N._...__
EATE:*4/13/89:*4/13/89
- 4/19/89 :*4/25/89 :4/
/89 :4/
- 4/
/89 :
9/89 l.
A
ENCLOSURE 1 APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEMENT 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 Guide provides 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 two categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the l
State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If significant problers exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
I Category II indicators address program functions which provide essential l
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 canner.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the c6 ' gory of each comment made.
If no significant Category I comments are providet this will indicate that the program is edequate 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 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 confirmed in a subsequent review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the sttff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a special limited review. NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No 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 er 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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.
l 1
l
~
ENCLOSURE 2 l
1 L
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW AND COMMENTS l
FLORIDA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD E
MARCH 6, 1987 TO MARCH 3, 1989 Scope of Review:
This program review was conducted in accordance with " Guidelines" published on June 4, 1987, and the internal procedures established by the Governmental and Public Affairs Office Agreement State Progrcm. The review included inspector accompaniments, discussions with program management and staff, technical l
evaluation of selected license files and compliance files (casework), and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
This review was the 24th regulatory program review and was held during the period February 27 - March 3, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. The State was represented by Dr. Lyle E. Jerrett, Director, Radiation Control Program and Mr. J. Daniel Nash, Manager, Materials Program. A review of selected license files and compliance files was conducted by R. L. Woodruff, Region II during the period February 27 - March 3, 1989. Ms. B. J. Holt, Region III assisted during the period March 1-3, 1989. Mr. Woodruff provided technical assistance to Cindy Becker, Coordinator of Field Operations, and conducted accompaniments of four inspectors during the period of February 20-24, 1989, prior to the Tallahassee review.
In addition, Mr. Woodruff and Ms. Holt accompanied i
Ms. Becker and another inspector on March 1, 1989. A sumary meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was held on March 3, 1989 with Edward A. Fever, Deputy Director for Health, Dr. Lyle E. Jarrett and selected members of the Radiation Control Program.
Conclusion The Florida program for the control of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the regulatory programs of the NRC and the Agreement States, i
Status of Previous NRC Coments and Recommendations I
l Comments and recommendations from NRC's previous review were sent to the State in a letter dated May 18, 1987. All of these comments were l
satisfactorily resolved with the exception of one comment on i
Staff Continuity. The specifics of this comment were discussed again with Mr. Fever during the summary meeting held on March 3,1989. This comment is being readdressed in the cover letter fcr this report.
l
2 Current Review Comments and Recommendations The remaining 28 indicators were reviewed in depth and the State fully satisfies the guidelines in 25 of these indicators. Specific comments and recommendations for the remaining three indicators are as follows:
I.
Management and Administration A.
Administrative Procedures is a Category II indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment in general, the State's administrative procedures were very good.
However, the procedures for reporting incidents to NRC are in need of revision to ensure that significant reports are sent to the Region 11 office in a timely manner. Five incident reports were receivec from Florida during the review (87-1, 87-21,88-28,88-36,and88-53). A revised numbering system was discussed for the reports with the Special Projects Health i
Physicist that will include "FL" as a prefix which will improve the incident tracking system.
Recommendation We recommend that the Administrative Procedures be revised to incorporate specific reporting requirements to the NRC Regional Office in accordance with the All Agreement State letter dated December 23, 1988. We also suggest that a "FL" prefix be added to the existing Florida numbering system.
B.
Office Equipment and Support Services is a Category 11 indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is mode.
Comment The State essentially meets the NRC guidelines in this program indicator; however, it was noted that field compliance offices and the county programs cannot communicate with the Tallahassee office via computers or diskettes. The desirability of preparing documents on a computer system and the transmittal of documents and information between the offices were discussed with program management.
Recommendation We recommend that the Scate consider providing compatible computer systems in each of the field offices to improve communications and thereby enhance the effectiveness of their regulatory program.
-A_-__________
)
' II. Licensing Licensing procedures is a Category II indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice. NRC medical use licensees are required to maintain records in accordance with regulations (10 CFR 35.92); Regulatory Guides 10.8, Revision 2 (Appendices M and R); and by specific license conditions. These provisions require licensees to maintain records of all licensed materials from the time of receipt until the material is transferred to an authorized recipient or properly disposed
" paper trail". During two inspections the inspectors did not make citations for lack of licensed material accountability.
In both instances, the records maintained by the licensee did not provide the necessary " paper trail" for unused licensed materials going into decay-in-storage (DIS) containers, or unused individual doses going to DIS, or being returned to the supplier.
It appears from our discussions with Florida RCP staff, that Florida licensees and consultants do not fully understand the material accountability ccricept (paper trail) or the records needed to show compliance with this requirement.
It was also noted that Florida standard license conditions do not fully set forth the record requirements above.
Reconnendation We recommend that a policy statement be developed and issued to all licensing and compliance staff, all medical licensees and their consultants that fully describes the record keeping requirements for receipt, use, transfer, decay-in-storage, and disposal of licensed materials. This policy should be consistent with NRC practice established in 10 CFR 20.301-20.311; 35.92; and Regulatory Guide 10.8, Revision 1, Appendices M and R.
Summary Discussion with State Representatives A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review meeting was held with Mr. Edward A. Fever, Deputy Director for Health; Dr. Lyle E. Jerrett, Director, Radiation Control Program; Dr. Mary Clark,' Program Consultant Physicist; Dr. J. Daniel Nash, Manager, Materials Program; Mr. Michael N. Stephens, Senior Licensing Specialist; and William A. Passetti, Special Projects.
l l
9
'?
4
.' A background staicment on the Florida Agreement State Program'was; provided to Mr.. Fever and the scope of the review was briefly-discussed. Staff continuity was discussed and also several positive actions were discussed.
I::
l 1
I