ML20002B659
| ML20002B659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/09/1980 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Myers B CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012220410 | |
| Download: ML20002B659 (7) | |
Text
f
/S t
f ucoq'o UNITED STATES
! \\ ;"s-q [,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/. E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
Yl,
f DEC
- 1930 Ref: SA/RJD
'I C
Ms. Severlee A. Myers, Director
~
ud Department of Health Services 5
~ J 714 p Street G
-.=
Sacramento, Californta 95814
Dear Ms. Myers:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. R. J. Doda and Mr. J. M. Brown held with you and members of your staff on November 7,1980 following our review and evaluation of the California radiation control program.
The review covered the principal administrative and technical aspects of the program. These include organization, administration, personnel, regulations, licensing, compliance and other areas affecting the radia-tion control program. The review also included accompaniments of State inspectors by Mr. Doda and Ms. Schneider of our staff during the week of October 27, 1980.
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comi:sion (NRC) and the State of California, the staff believes that the California program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety, and is compatible with the NRC's progrcm for regulation of similar materials. This conclusion is based, in part, on general improvements in the State's program regarding staffing, managcment, licensing, and compliance activities and on other specific program changes that, while only in initial stages at this time, are designed to produce further program improvements.
As you recall, our 1979 review meeting generated a number of significant comments concerning the administrative and technical aspects of the program. These were contained in Mr. Ryan's September 17, 1979 letter to you. As a result of your reply to that letter, we held follow-up discussions on these items with your staff on October 24-26, 1979 and November 13, 1979. Since this period, your letters of February 8, 1980 and October 7, 1980 have provided us with details of some of the State's actions regarding various improvements in the radiation control program.
l During our current review, we examined in detail the subject areas that were included in the meetings and corr w o!ence mentioned above. We were pleased to find that the State ?ec uken some action in nearly all I
the areas. Some actions have re*chttc a positive evidence of program improvement, while others are e,r.1/
ttial stages at this time.
Sumary statements with respect to tr.s s-subject areas are contained in an enclosure to this letter.
i 8 012 2 2 0 'f/
Ms. Beverlee A. Myers The specific recommendations and comments resulting from our current review of the program are stated below.
We recomend your continued efforts in obtaining the two additional health physicists for the licensing staff which are covered by the budget change proposal now in progress. This need is highlighted by the significant backlog of current licensing actions (a total of 245 pending, new applications plus timely renewals). We recomend this backlog be reduced as soon as practicable.
We recommend continued development of the State's ADP system for manage-ment of information such as, renewal notices, scheduling inspections, inspection follow-up data, distribution of technical information, and other program requirements. The benefits achievable from such a system (e.g., optimizing staff workload) are greater, in a relative sense, due to the complex program and the large number of licenses in California.
The State could very well develop a leadership role in this area.
We recomend again the earliest possible adoption of the State's revised radiation control regulations. We note that they were last revised in 1974. Also, we recomend that the State adopt amended regulations to provide the authority to inspect licensees for packaging and transpor-tation activities relative to the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for radioactive materials and to plan for implementing these inspection activities. This subject was first brought to the States' attention in a letter dated October 31, 1979 to All Agreement States and again in a second letter dated January 18, 1980.
The technical aspects of the program and the licensing and compliance file reviews were discussed with the staff in detail. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter to Mr. Joe Ward with coments regarding the technical aspects of the program.
I am also enclosing a second copy of each letter which should be placed in your State Public Document Room or otherwisc be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to Messrs. Doda and Brown and Ms. Schneider during the review meeting with your staff.
I would appreciate your review of these recommendations and your ccments on them.
Sincerely,
. (A.)
G. Wayne Ke, r, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Joe Ward NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room
ENCLOSURE
SUMMARY
STATEMENTS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE CALIFORNIA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM November 7, 1980 LICENSING 1.
Review Comittee. The Radiclogic Health Section (RHS) licensing staff meets periodically to review major licensing actions and sealed source and device approvals. This policy was implemented by Materials Memo No. 81 Revised, dated February 21, 1980 (copy included in the 1980 California Review Report).
Supervisors review all Type A authorizations and all sealed source and device approvals.
In addition, the State initiated on July 1, 1980 the practice of reviewing 10% of other licensing actions for conformance with regulations, policy and good health physics practice.
2.
Procedures Contained in License Applications. The State is requiring certain procedures to be contained in license applications, e.g.,
package opening procedures.
Evidence of this practice should be apparent during next year's review of the license files.
3.
Backlog of Licensing Actions. There are 72 new license applications pending and 173 licenses in timely renewal status for a total backlog of 245 licensing actions. This represents somewhere in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 person-years of effort depending on the complexity of the license mix of this group.
In addition, licensing actions (new licenses plus amendments) were down to 1270 for this year's review period compared to 2011 for last year.
COMPLIANCE 1.
Supervisory Accompaniments. During the review period, there were 20 supervisory accompaniments performed by contract agency super-visors and 2 performed by the RHS supervisor of compliance and inspection. We understand that all contract agency inspectors will be accompanied by the appropriate agency supervisor at least once each year and all inspectors will be accompanied by the RHS super-visor of compliance and inspection at least once every two years.
2.
Management Contacts. The State is routinely contacting licensee management during entry and exit interviews for inspections. This was demonstrated during State Agreements Program (SAP) accompaniments of State inspectors. The State has requested by memo, dated i
l September 30, 1980 from C. Mott to the contract agencies (copy included in the 1980 California Review Report) that all inspectors detennine the proper management correspondent during inspections.
l This individual will be identified on all correspondence dealing j
with compliance and inspection matters.
l r
. 3.
Uniform Inspection Format.
Uniform documentation practices for inspecticns was initiated on February 8,1980 by use of a uniform inspection format (UIF).
VIFs were used by inspectors during SAP accompaniments and this use appeared to produce complete inspections, in general. The State plans to assess the effectiveness of the UIFs and make modifications, if needed.
4.
Overdue Inspections. There were 46 overdue inspections, 14 of which were priority II inspections. This is an increase from the 17 overdue inspections listed last year.
5.
Inspection Reports.
Inspection reports are routinely reviewed and documented by the contract agency supervisors. However, documenta-tion of review by the RHS supervisor of compliance and inspection was not apparent. Four inspection reports (License No. 0441-30, dates of inspection - January 21-22, 1980; License No. 0015-59, dates of inspection - April 3-4, 1980; License No. 2713-30, date of inspection - November 20, 1979; License No. 0372-70, date of inspection - Octcber 4,1979) were not signed-off as being reviewed by the RHS supervisor of compliance and inspection.
6.
Previous Items of Nonccmpliance. During SAP accompaniments, State inspectors were observed to satisfactorily follow-up previous items of noncompliance.
7.
Interviewing Employees.
During SAP accompaniments, State inspectors were observed to interview employees concerning work habits, operating procedures, training received, certain health physics practices, and other general work-area activities.
8.
. Instrument Calibration. A uniform instrument calibration protocol was issued by the RHS in October 1980. The purpose of this protocol is to provide RHS staff and the contract agencies with guidance for calibration of survey instruments, which are used by inspectors in independent measurements made during compliance inspections of State licensees. A copy of this procedure is included in the 1980 California Review Report.
ADMINISTRATION 1.
Task Tracking System. The State has a task and correspondence tracking system which is used to monitor progress, target dates, and completion dates. Previous problems with unanswered corres-pondence and overdue tasks appeared to be caused by an unfilled vacancy on the staff. Now, the status of all tasks and correspondence may easily be determined and the responsible staff member for any j
particular task may readily be identified.
. 2.
Staff Meetings. Staff meetings are held regularly by the RilS.
Discussion topics and the responsible staff members are indicated on forms for this purpose. The meeting is conducted using a fixed agenda and with a defined time schedule.
Following the meeting, any decisions, actions, or follow-up assignments are recorded on the staff meeting forms. One staff meeting was held on October 30, 1980 during the SAP review (copies of forms as a result of this meeting are included in the 1980 California Review Report).
3.
Administrative Services. The RHS has been assigned one new individual (L. Casaleggio) by the Department of Health Services to act as a consultant in administrative servicr.s. His duties will include an examination of the management and administrative procedures of the RHS and the submission of recommendations for improving those procedures.
4.
ADP System. The RHS uses an ADP system for licensee fee notices.
In addition, a systems analyst from the Department of Health Services has been assigned to work with the RHS in the agreement materials program to further develop a managment infonnation system. During the SAP review, use of the ADP system produced mixed results, e.g.,
a complete list of licensees had a number of coding errors and omissions, and a list of all inspections performed in 1980 was not readily available for SAP reviewers. The list of 1980 inspections had to be completed by hand. The State is continuing to develop the capabilities of this data retrieval system.
STAFFING 1.
Person-Years Available. The RHS has added four new health physicists.
The Department of Health Services was delegated authority to hold an examination for these health physicist positions and results were announced during the SAP review meeting - all four passed the examination. The staffing level fcr the agreement materials program is 17.2 person-years (vs.15.3 person-years last year). This equates to.91 person-years per 100 licenses (vs. 80 person-years per 100 licenses last year).
Five new technical staff positions are being filled immediately. These positions are primarily in environmental activities, however, there may be some overlap in agreement materials regarding transportation of radioactive materials.
In addition, the Department of Health Services has submitted a budget change proposal for two additional health physicists for the RHS licensing staff exclusively. These positions are very important to the program, particularly with regard to Item 3 of the Licensing Section above, which indicates the existence of a substantial backlog of licensing actions.
. TRAINING 1.
Out-of-State Travel. The granting of out-of-state travel to attend training programs was greatly improved over last year. During the review period, out-of-state travel for training was granted on 19 different occasions.
2.
Training Effort. Professional staff effort devoted to training was 3.0% of the total effort available. This is greatly improved over last year where the staff training effort was only.03% of the total effort available.
4 REGULATIONS 1.
Revised Regulations. Tne State's revised radiation control regula-tions are well into the revision process, having been sent from the Regulations Unit to the Budget Office for fiscal review.
Even though, it appears the revised regulations will not be published for a number of months yet. The State's radiation control regulations were last revised in 1974.
2.
Reference to 00T Regulations. The State's radiation control regu-lations do not presently provide a reference to DOT's regulations for the packaging and transportation of radioactive material, except for intrastate shipments. The adoption of amended regulations on this subject is a matter of compatibility.
It should be noted, how-ever, that the State recently passed legislation (Assembly Bill No.
l 2747, Wray. Radioactive Materials, September 10,1980)which l
provides broad State authority with respect to the transportation of radioactive material.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES 1.
Nuclear Medicine Technology Advisory Committee. This committee has met six times during the review period.
l 2.
Medical Advisory Committee. This committee met once, January 18, l
190u, during the review period. There were no minutes of this meeting available.
l l
l
INCIDENT FILES 1.
Incident Files.
During the SAP office review, 56 " closed" incident files were delivered to the Sacramento office by the RHS supervisor of compliance and inspection. The files that were reviewed appeared complete and orderly, and the background information concerning each incident was clearly stated.
I A l A. h Robert J. Deda State Agreements Program
/ [G
'7L [v. 5< (t2tt< c4c Kathleen N. Schneider -
State Agreements Program
.