July 13, 2000

Mr. Harold Reheis, Director

Environmental Protection Division

Department of Natural Resources

205 Butler Street, East Tower, E-1152

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Dear Mr. Reheis:

On June 27, 2000, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Georgia Agreement

State Program. The MRB found the Georgia program adequate to assure public health and safety

and compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 14, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s 

recommendations. We received your May 24, 2000 letter which described your actions taken in

response to the recommendations in the draft report. We request no additional information.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately four

years.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review and your

support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work

cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl J. Paperiello, Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Mr. David Word, Deputy Director,

Environmental Protection Division

Mr. James Setser, Chief

Program Coordination Branch

Mr. Thomas Hill, Manager

Radioactive Materials Program
Mr. Harold Reheis

bcc: Chairman Meserve

Commissioner Dicus

Commissioner Diaz

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP01) PDR (YES/)

SDroggitis, STP

KSchneider, STP

KHseuh, STP

WSilva, Texas 

DCollins, RII

RTrojanowski, RII

DCool, NMSS

GDeegan, NMSS

MShaffer, RIV 

VCampbell, RIV

RWoodruff, RII

CMaupin, ASPO

STreby, OGC

HNewsome, OGC

FCameron, OGC

TCombs, OCA (2)

Geogia File

DOCUMENT NAME: I:\Reviews\Ga00\gaimp2000final report.wpd

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy

OFFICE RIV STP:DD OSP:D DEDMRS

NAME MRShaffer:gd FCombs PHLohaus CPaperiello

DATE 6/30/00 7/3/00 7/3/00 7/13/00

STP FILE CODE: AG-7
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF GEORGIA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

April 3-7, 2000

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Georgia Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Georgia radiation control program. The

review was conducted during the period April 3-7, 2000, by a review team comprised of technical

staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of

Texas. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance

with the "Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program and

Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the Federal Register on October

16, 1997, and the November 5, 1999, NRC Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which covered the

period February 16, 1996 to April 7, 2000 were discussed with Georgia management on April 7,

2000.

A draft of this report was issued to Georgia for factual comment on April 22, 2000. The State

responded in a letter dated May 24, 2000. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on

June 27, 2000, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Georgia radiation

control program was adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s

program.

The Georgia Agreement State program is administered by Georgia’s Department of Natural

Resources (the Department) and is located within the Program Coordination Branch (the Branch),

Environmental Protection Division (the Division). Two programs within the Branch have

responsibility for the Agreement State program, the Radioactive Materials Program (the Program)

and the Environmental Radiation Program. The Program which administers the major portion of

the Agreement State program is under the supervision of a Program Manager. An organization

chart for the Department of Natural Resources is included as Appendix B. At the time of the

review, the Georgia program regulated 481 specific licenses authorizing agreement materials. 

The review focused on the materials program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of Georgia.

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common

performance indicators was sent to the Program on January 7, 2000. The Program provided a

response to the questionnaire on March 1, 2000. During the review, discussions with the Program

staff resulted in the responses being further developed. A copy of the questionnaire responses is

included as Appendix G to proposed final report.

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination of

Georgia’s response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Georgia statutes and

regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Program’s licensing and inspection

data base; (4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field

accompaniments of six Georgia inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to

answer questions or clarify issues. The team evaluated the information that it gathered against

the IMPEP performance criteria for each common and non-common performance indicator and

made a preliminary assessment of the radiation control program's performance.

Section 2 below discusses the Program’s actions in response to recommendations made following

the previous IMPEP review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance
Georgia Final Report Page 2

indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-common

performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings and

recommendations. Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate directly

to program performance by the Program. A response is requested from the Program to all

recommendations in the final report. 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on February 16, 1996, eight

recommendations were made and transmitted to Mr. Harold F. Reheis, Director, Environmental

Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources on July 8, 1996. The team’s review

of the current status of these recommendations is as follows:

1. The review team recommends that Georgia reevaluate its procedures for scheduling initial

inspections to ensure that all licensees are inspected within 12 months of license

issuance, regardless of whether or not they possess material or perform licensed

operations.

Current Status: The procedures were re-evaluated for scheduling initial inspections to

insure that all licensees are inspected within 12 months of license issuance, whether or

not they possess material or conduct licensed operations. These inspections are being

scheduled and performed according to the recommendation. This recommendation is

closed.

2. The review team recommends that the State's "announced" inspection policy be revised to

provide for more unannounced routine inspections and reciprocity inspections. More

consistency with the policy in IMC 2800 would result. 

Current Status: The Program’s goals and objectives were modified so that 10-15 percent

of routine inspections are conducted as unannounced inspections. This recommendation

is closed.

3. The review team recommends that the State consider for adoption a policy of annual

accompaniments of all inspectors, and that these accompaniments be performed by a

supervisor or another senior inspector and the results documented.

Current Status: With one or two exceptions, the Program Manager has accompanied each

inspector at least once each year. The documentation of these accompaniments has been

captured in the data base. Each inspector is orally critiqued at the conclusion of the

inspection. This recommendation is closed.

4. The review team recommends that the State's current system for tracking enforcement

actions and correspondence be reevaluated and revised as appropriate to assure that

enforcement actions are closed out in a consistent and timely manner.
Georgia Final Report Page 3

Current Status: The Program’s current system for tracking enforcement actions and

correspondence was reevaluated and revised to assure that enforcement actions are

closed in a timely manner. This recommendation is closed.

5. The review team recommends that the Program's internal administrative procedures for

reporting Misadministrations, Complaints and Incidents be revised to reflect the most

recent NRC guidance regarding the primary contact, event reporting criteria and the event

report format.

Current Status: The Program’s internal administrative procedures have been revised and

reflect the most recent NRC guidance regarding event reporting and allegations. This

recommendation is closed.

6. The review team recommends that Associates document their reviews of events, in the

licensee's radioactive materials file, for each reportable event.

Current Status: The Program revised its procedure to include documenting incident

reports in the licensee’s radioactive material file. The Program staff has been informed of

this change and the new procedure has been implemented. This recommendation is

closed.

7. The review team recommends that manufacturers and distributors of sealed sources and

devices (SS&D) be required to establish and implement a manufacturing Quality

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program.

Current Status: In order to determine whether manufacturers and distributors had

established a QA/QC program, the Program established a manufacturing/distribution

QA/QC inspection program. The program became effective in November 1996. The initial

QA/QC inspection was performed June 1, 1997. The Program has confirmed that each

manufacturing/distribution licensee has a QA/QC program in place. This recommendation

is closed.

8. The review team recommends that Georgia adopt regulations compatible with

10 CFR 30.32 (g) and 10 CFR 32.210 in order to maintain an effective SS&D evaluation

program. 

Current Status: Georgia adopted regulations effective May 6, 1997 compatible with

10 CFR 30.32(g) and 10 CFR 32.210 (391-3-17-.02(7)(i) and .02(11)(l) respectively). This

recommendation is closed.

During the 1996 review, four suggestions were made concerning: (1) the adoption of standardized

inspection forms; (2) second party reviews of inspection and enforcement documents; (3)

guidance for the review of quality management programs for medical licensees; and (4) the

documentation of two incident reviews. The team determined that the Program considered the

suggestions and took appropriate actions.
Georgia Final Report Page 4

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional

and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials Inspection

Program; (2) Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; (4) Technical

Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations. 

3.1 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue

inspections, initial inspections of new licenses, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to

licensees. The review team’s evaluation is based on the Georgia questionnaire responses

relative to this indicator, data gathered independently from the Program’s licensing and inspection

data tracking system, the examination of complete licensing and inspection casework, and

interviews with managers and staff.

A review of the Program’s inspection priorities revealed that the inspection frequencies for the

various types of licenses are the same or more frequent than similar license types listed in NRC

Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800. The Program may also extend the inspection frequency

based on the compliance history of the licensee. The Program has a procedure whereby every

six months a listing of inspections due during the next six months is provided to each inspector for

their assigned areas of the State. The inspectors use these lists to determine their inspection

schedule.

In their response to the questionnaire, the Program Manager indicated that the Program had only

one inspection overdue by more than 25% of the NRC frequency. The single exception is a

licensee who requested termination of its license more than three years ago; however, the

licensee cannot locate disposal records for several small sources. Routine inspections of the

facility are not necessary, but the Program will not terminate the license until the licensee provides

documentation of the proper disposal of the sources. 

With respect to initial inspections of new licensees, the team evaluated a list of licensing actions

and determined that there were 83 new licenses issued during the review period. A random

sampling of five of these new licenses were reviewed. All but one licensee had been inspected

within six months. The one licensee not inspected had been contacted by telephone and due to

delays with the construction phase of their facility, the licensee had not yet received licensed

material. The Program does not intend to perform an onsite inspection until the licensee receives

material, but the Program will continue to perform telephone contacts to review the status of

licensed activities.

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was evaluated during the inspection

casework review. All of the inspection findings were transmitted to the licensees within the

Program’s goal of 15 work days following the inspection. Inspectors have the option of issuing a

Violation Acknowledgment Form (similar to NRC Form 591) if no items or only minor items of

noncompliance are identified during an inspection.
Georgia Final Report Page 5

To evaluate the Program’s reciprocity inspection program, the review team obtained a computer

printout of data for the years of 1996 through 1999. With regard to core licensees (Priorities 1, 2

and 3) the Program received 55 requests for reciprocity in 1996; 48 requests for reciprocity in

1997; 62 requests for reciprocity in 1998; and 46 requests for reciprocity in 1999. The Program

performed six reciprocity inspections in 1996, seven in 1997, 10 in 1998 and 10 in 1999. Although

the Program’s efforts did not meet the goals established in IMC 1220, the Program continues to

perform inspections of reciprocity licensees as resources permit. The team believes that this level

of effort is acceptable.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Georgia's performance

with respect to the indicator, Status of the Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections

The team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and inspection field notes

and interviewed inspectors for 22 radioactive materials inspections conducted during the review

period. The casework included five of the Program’s materials license inspectors, and covered

inspections of various types including radiography, medical, academic, portable and fixed gauges,

and nuclear pharmacy. Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed for completeness

and adequacy with case-specific comments.

The inspection procedures utilized by the Program are consistent with the inspection guidance

outlined in IMC 2800. Inspection reports are in a checklist format that adequately cover all

inspection areas. The Program has specific inspection forms for the various types of licensees. 

An inspector has the option of issuing a Violation Acknowledgment Form whenever they find no

violations or minor violations. The form is signed by a licensee representative and a copy is

maintained for the files. Narrative reports are completed for all of broad scope licensees. The

Program Manager reviews a sampling of inspection reports as time permits. The Program

Manager does review all new employees’ inspection reports.

It was noted that Georgia has an adequate number and types of survey meters to support the

current inspection program. Appropriate, calibrated survey instruments such as GM meters,

scintillation detectors, ion chambers and micro-R meters were observed in the meter cabinet. 

Inspectors are not assigned meters, but check out an appropriate meter for the inspection they are

performing. The meters are calibrated by Ludlum, Eberline, and the South Carolina Department of

Health and Environmental Control. The Bonner sphere is calibrated by Georgia Tech each time it

is used. The task of ensuring the survey meters are calibrated is rotated among the inspection

staff. Georgia Tech is contracted to provide laboratory support. In addition to routine laboratory

services, the Environmental Radiation Program maintains the mobile laboratory.

Based on casework, the review team noted that the routine inspections covered all aspects of the

licensee’s radiation programs. The review team found that inspection reports were thorough,

complete, consistent, and of high quality, with sufficient documentation to ensure that the

licensee’s performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. The documentation

supported violations, recommendations made to the licensee, unresolved safety issues, and

discussions held with the licensee during exit interviews. Team inspections were performed when

appropriate and for training purposes.
Georgia Final Report Page 6

During the review period, inspector accompaniments were performed by the Program Manager on

each of the staff at least annually, with one exception. The Program’s SS&D reviewer had not

been accompanied each year; however, this individual is an experienced inspector and had only

performed a few materials inspections during this review period. The Program Manager

concentrated his accompaniment efforts on the newer inspectors. The review team considered

this approach acceptable.

Six Program inspectors were accompanied during inspections by a review team member between

February 14, and March 22, 2000. The accompaniments included a nuclear pharmacy, two

institutional nuclear medicine facilities, one cardiologist, one high dose rate afterloaders (HDR),

and one SS&D manufacturer’s license. These accompaniments are also identified in Appendix C.

During the accompaniments, each inspector demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques and

knowledge of the regulations. The inspectors were trained, prepared, and thorough in their audits

of the licensees’ radiation safety programs. Overall, each inspector utilized good health physics

practices, their interviews with licensee personnel were performed in an effective manner, and

their inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the licensed facilities.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the team review team recommends that Georgia’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Program’s staffing level and staff

turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. To evaluate

these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to this

indicator, interviewed program management and staff, and considered any possible workload

backlogs. 

The Board of Natural Resources is a Constitutional Board, empowered by State statute with all

the general policy-making functions of the Department of Natural Resources. Currently the Board

has 16 governor-appointed members; 12 are from each voting district and the remaining four are

members-at-large. The review team examined the State’s conflict of interest policy that is

applicable to the Board. It was noted that Board members are required to recuse themselves from

matters posing a potential conflict of interest.

The Program Manager supervises two administrative and eight technical staff members. The

technical staff members are classified as either Environmental Radiation Specialists 1 or 3

(specialist). The Program is fully staffed and there have been only three turnovers since the last

IMPEP review. Vacancies were filled in an expedient manner. 

The Program divided the State into six regional areas with one specialist assigned to each area

and responsible for licensing and inspection in that area. One specialist has been assigned to

work out of the area office located in Savannah and the other specialists all work out of Atlanta. 

One specialist is assigned to the review and inspection of SS&D licenses which is discussed

further in Section 4.2. All of the technical staff members are trained to perform license reviews

and inspections. One specialist is assigned to manage and computerize the technical information,
Georgia Final Report Page 7

and this individual also has training and experience as a license reviewer and inspector. The

team determined that the program has a well balanced staff, and a sufficient number of trained

personnel to carry out the regulatory duties of the program.

The Program has developed a written training program, based upon the requirements specified in

IMC 1246, for license reviewers and inspectors. Qualification journals for the specialists have

also been developed. All radiation specialists are required to have bachelor’s degrees or

equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. The specialists are sent to the 5-week

Health Physics course and other specialist training sponsored by the NRC as the courses become

available. New hires are allowed to work with the more senior staff and under the direct guidance

of the Program Manager until appropriate training and experience is received, and until the

individual obtains the confidence to perform the assigned tasks independently. The Program

Manager reviews the licensing work performed by the junior personnel and accompanies them

during inspections to assure regulatory consistency and quality of work performed. The team

confirmed the qualifications of the staff hired since the l996 IMPEP review and verified their

performance through licensing and compliance casework and inspection accompaniments. The

Program Manager expressed a strong commitment to training, and on several occasions has

allowed the staff to attend training conducted at NRC’s Region II office on risk assessment and

other topics. 

The Environmental Radiation Program is a sister program within the Department and provides

assistance in environmental monitoring, obtaining samples and sample analyses. Also, some of

the Environmental Radiation Program staff are trained and qualified to perform materials

inspections, and are available to respond to incidents when requested by the Program Manager. 

Based on the team's finding and the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that

Georgia’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found

satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed the staff for 18 specific

licenses. Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness, consistency, proper isotopes and

quantities used, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and equipment, and

operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. 

Licenses were evaluated for overall technical quality including accuracy, appropriateness of the

license, its conditions, and tie-down conditions. Casework was evaluated for timeliness;

adherence to good health physics practices; reference to appropriate regulations; documentation

of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other supporting documents; consideration of

enforcement history on renewals; pre-licensing visits, peer or supervisory review as indicated; and

proper signature authority. The files were checked for retention of necessary documents and

supporting data.

The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions that

were completed during the review period. The sampling included the following types: industrial

radiography, medical (institution and private practice), nuclear pharmacy, academic and industrial

broad scope, nuclear laundry, manufacturing and distribution, portable and fixed gauge, and
Georgia Final Report Page 8

in-vitro laboratory. Types of licensing actions selected for evaluation included four new licenses,

eight amendments to existing licenses, four license renewals, and two license terminations. In

discussions with the Program Manager, it was noted that there were no major decommissioning

efforts underway with regard to agreement material in Georgia. Also, there were no identified

sites with potential decommissioning difficulties equivalent to those sites in NRC's site

Decommissioning Management Plan. A list of the licenses evaluated with case-specific comments

can be found in Appendix D.

The casework evaluation indicated that the staff follows appropriate licensing guides during the

review process to ensure that licensees submit information necessary to support their request. 

The review team found the checklists used for each type of program to be comprehensive and

incorporated excellent notes to assist the staff with their review of the applications. Deficiencies

were addressed by letters and documented telephone conversations containing appropriate

regulatory language. The use of license templates by the staff also resulted in notable

consistency between reviewers. Each license reviewer has proper signature authority to sign

their own licensing actions. Overall, the review team found that the licensing actions were

thorough, complete, consistent, of high quality and properly addressed health and safety issues. 

The review team determined that the Program had not fully implemented the financial assurance

requirements adopted by the Department in 1991 and clarified in May 1997. The team’s

examination of the licenses disclosed that several licenses authorized radioactive material in the

types and quantities requiring financial assurance documents. However, the licensees did not

address the financial assurance requirements. Two licensees submitted a certification of financial

assurance but the Program did not amend these licenses to properly limit the possession of

radioactive material as prescribed by the regulations. One licensee submitted a decommissioning

funding plan with the appropriate financial instrument, and later submitted an adjusted site-specific

cost estimate. However, the licensee did not adjust the amount of the financial instrument to

match the amended cost estimate. The review team noted that the Program’s staff did not have a

clear understanding of Georgia’s regulations regarding financial assurance requirements. The

review team recommends that the Program review all Georgia licenses to ascertain if they require

financial assurance, and take appropriate action on each affected license to ensure that all

licenses meet the State’s financial assurance requirements.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Georgia's performance

with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Program’s actions in responding to incidents, the review

team examined the Program’s response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator, evaluated

selected incidents reported for Georgia in the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) against

those contained in the Georgia files, and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation

for ten material incidents. A list of the incident casework examined with the case-specific

comments is included in Appendix E. The team also reviewed the State’s response to nine

allegations involving radioactive materials including three allegations referred to the State by NRC

during the review period.
Georgia Final Report Page 9

The review team discussed the Program’s incident and allegation procedure, file documentation,

the State’s equivalent to the Freedom of Information Act, NMED, and notification of incidents to

the NRC Operations Center with the Program Manager and selected staff.

The responsibility for initial response and follow-up to incidents and allegations involving

radioactive materials is shared between the Program and the Environmental Radiation Program. 

Written procedures exist for handling incidents and allegations (referred to as “complaints” by the

Program). These procedures and accompanying summary forms are available to all staff on the

Program’s Local Area Network system. Event calls or reports are handled by the individual

receiving the notification, or are assigned to another staff member by the Program Manager. The

Program Manager is informed of the initial call and any subsequent follow-up or resolution of the

case. 

The Program had 26 reportable radioactive materials incidents during the review period and 10

were selected for review. The incidents included: loss of radioactive material, damaged devices,

leaking sources, misadministrations and stolen gauges. The review team found that the State’s

response to incidents were complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and wellcoordinated. The level of effort was commensurate with the health and safety significance. 

Inspectors were dispatched for on-site investigations when appropriate and the State took suitable

enforcement action including coordination with the license reviewers and follow up, as

appropriate.

During the period of this review, the Program adopted and implemented the NMED incident

reporting system. However, in 1999, the Program’s computer system was upgraded and does not

include Microsoft Access 2.0 software, the database management software currently used by

NMED. Since that time, the Program has been submitting routine event information by e-mail to

NRC’s contractor, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, for input to NMED. 

The Program plans to resolve this software issue and begin using the NMED incident reporting

system in the near future.

The Program’s procedures for handling incidents includes NRC’s 24-hour Emergency Operation

Center telephone number as the first point of contact with the NRC for events which require

immediate or 24-hour reporting by licensees. However, at the time of this review, the procedure

did not reference the most recent version of NRC’s guidance on event reporting, “Handbook on

Nuclear Event Reporting in the Agreement States.” As a result, the Program’s staff was not aware

of the requirement to report routine events to NMED within one month following notification of the

event by its licensees. The Program reported routine events to the NMED contractor in June and

December of 1999. 

The team discussed this issue with the Program Manager and the staff member responsible for

NMED data entry. The Program’s incident procedure was revised to reference the Office of State

and Tribal Programs (STP) Procedure SA-300, Handbook on Nuclear Event Reporting in the

Agreement States, during the week of this review. The Program’s staff has been informed of the

reporting criteria contained in the revised procedure. Also, NRC staff is modifying SA-300 to

clarify the timing requirements for event reporting to NRC. Routine events occurring between

December 1999 and April 2000, were also reported to the NMED contractor during this review.
Georgia Final Report Page 10

During the review period, three allegations were referred to the Program by the NRC. The

casework for these allegations was reviewed as well as the case work for the six additional

allegations reported directly to the Program. The review of the casework and the Program’s files

indicated that the Program took prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised. 

All of the allegations reviewed were appropriately closed and the team noted that allegations were

treated and documented internally in the same manner as incidents. There were no performance

issues identified from the review of the casework documentation. The team also noted that

Georgia law requires that all public documents be made available for inspection and copying

unless specifically exempted from disclosure under Georgia’s Open Records Act. The Program

makes every effort to protect an alleger’s identity, but it cannot be guaranteed.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Georgia’s performance

with respect to the indicator, Response to Incidents and Allegations, be found satisfactory.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement

State programs: (1) Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility; (2) Sealed

Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; and

(4) Uranium Recovery Program. Georgia's Agreement does not cover uranium recovery, so only

the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable to this review.

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation

Along with their response to the questionnaire, the Program provided the review team with the

opportunity to review copies of legislation that affects the radiation control program. Legislative

authority to create an agency and enter into an agreement with the NRC is granted in the Georgia

Radiation Control Act (O.C.G.A. Title 31 Chapter 13, et seq., as amended). Further authority for

program activities is addressed in the State Administrative Procedures Act (O.C.G.A. Title 50

Chapter 13, as amended). The Department of Natural Resources is designated as the State’s

radiation control agency. The review team noted that no legislation affecting the radiation control

program was passed since being found adequate during the previous review, and found that the

State legislation is adequate. 

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The Georgia Regulations for Control of Radiation, found in Chapter 391-3-17, Rules and

Regulations for Radioactive Materials, apply to all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from

radionuclides or devices. Georgia requires a license for possession, and use, of all radioactive

material including naturally occurring materials, such as radium, and accelerator-produced

radionuclides.
Georgia Final Report Page 11

The review team examined the procedures used in the Program’s regulatory process and found

that the public and other interested parties are offered an opportunity to comment on proposed

rules during a 30-day comment period and during a public meeting. The NRC is provided with

drafts for comment on the proposed rules early in the promulgation process. The proposed rules

are forwarded to the Board of Natural Resources for review and approval. The Board’s calendar

for rule adoption is tentatively set in January for that calendar year and all programs in the

Department wishing to promulgate rules must get on the Board’s calendar. After the proposed

rules are adopted by the Board, they must be filed with the Secretary of State. Twenty days after

filing the rules become final. Typically, rule promulgation requires 9 to 12 months, including

drafting of revisions. The Department’s Rules and Regulations are not the subject of “sunset”

laws.

The team evaluated Georgia’s responses to the questionnaire, reviewed the status of regulations

required to be adopted by the State under the Commission’s Adequacy and Compatibility Policy,

and verified the adoption of regulations with data obtained from the Office of State and Tribal

Programs Regulation Assessment Tracking System.

The team identified the following regulation changes and adoptions that will be needed in the

future. The Program Manager related that these regulations would be addressed in an upcoming

rulemaking scheduled for fiscal year 2001, but not before the revised 10 CFR Part 35 becomes

final. The State’s fiscal year 2001 is from July 2000 through June 2001.

! “Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean

Air Act,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65120) that became effective January 9,

1997.

! “Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

Within an Agreement State,” 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became

effective February 27, 1997.

! “Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material,” 10 CFR Parts

20 and 35 amendments (62 FR 4120) that became effective May 29, 1997.

! “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety - Requirements for Industrial

Radiography Operations,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 34, 71, and 150 amendments (62 FR 28947)

that became effective June 27, 1997.

! “Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70

amendments (62 FR 39057) that became effective August 20, 1997.

! “Exempt Distribution of a Radioactive Drug Containing One Microcurie of Carbon-14

Urea,” 10 CFR Part 30 amendment (62 FR 63634) that became effective January 2, 1998.

! “Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, 70, and 150

amendments (63 FR 1890 and 13773) that became effective February 12, 1998.
Georgia Final Report Page 12

! “License for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial

Radiographic Operations; Clarifying Amendments and Corrections,” 10 CFR Part 34

amendment (63 FR 37059) that became effective July 9, 1998.

! “Respiratory Protection and Controls to Restrict Internal Exposures,” 10 CFR Part 20

amendment (64 FR 54543 and 64 FR 55524) that became effective February 2, 2000.

During the review, the Program Manager related that the above regulations have been drafted

and will be combined with the State’s equivalent final 10 CFR Part 35 regulation as a package of

regulations to be adopted in fiscal year 2001. 

It is noted that Management Directive 5.9, Handbook, Part V, (1)(C)(III) provides that the above 

regulations issued prior to September 3, 1997 should be adopted by the State as expeditiously as

possible, but not later than three years after the September 3, 1997 effective date of the

Commission Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility, i.e., September 3, 2000.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Georgia’s performance

with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, be

found satisfactory.

4.2 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program

In assessing the State's SS&D evaluation program, the review team examined information

provided by the State in response to the IMPEP questionnaire on this indicator. A review of

selected new and amended SS&D evaluations and supporting documents covering the review

period was conducted. The team observed the staff's use of guidance documents and

procedures, interviewed the staff and Program Manager involved in SS&D evaluations, and

verified the use of regulations and license conditions to enforce commitments made in the

applications. 

4.2.1 Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program

The Program has processed nine new registrations, nine amendments, 12 change of address

actions, and six transfers from NRC since the last review. The review team selected eight of the

newly issued SS&D registry certificates and one registry that had been amended in it’s entirety. 

The review included all amendments, supporting documentation, licenses, and inspections

associated with each of the registrations selected. The nine certificates reviewed covered the

period since the last program review in February 1996 and represented cases completed by the

principal reviewer. The SS&D certificates issued by the Program and evaluated by the review

team are listed with case-specific comments in Appendix F. 

Analysis of the files and interviews with the staff confirmed that the program follows the

recommended guidance from the NRC SS&D training workshops and NUREG-1556, Volume 3,

issued September 1997. Appropriate review checklists were used to assure all relevant 
Georgia Final Report Page 13

materials have been submitted and reviewed. The checklist was contained in the registration file. 

All pertinent American National Standards Institute standard, Regulatory Guides, and applicable

references were confirmed to be available and were used when performing SS&D reviews.

The registration files contained all correspondence, photographs, engineering drawings, radiation

profiles, and results of tests conducted by the applicant. The registrations clearly summarized the

product evaluation to provide license reviewers with adequate information to license the

possession and use of the product. Deficiency letters clearly stated regulatory positions and all

health and safety issues were properly addressed. The team determined that the product

evaluations were thorough, complete, consistent, of acceptable technical quality, and adequately

addressed the integrity of the products during use and in the event of an accident.

As noted in Section 2.0, the program implemented a policy of conducting QA/QC inspections on all

SS&D registrants to ensure accuracy and consistency in the production of sources/devices. A

letter was sent to all manufacturers and distributors of SS&Ds which informed the registrants

(licensees) that a QA/QC inspection was being implemented to ensure that products are being

constructed according to design specifications. The Program developed a QA Inspection Form for

SS&D’s and a Gauge Distribution Inspection Form for use during the QA/QC inspections. These

inspections were completed during the period of July 1997 through June 1998 and were in

addition to the normal routine inspections conducted on each license. The team believes that this

method to evaluate SS&D registrants’ QA/QC programs should be considered a good practice.

4.2.2 Technical Staffing and Training

Following the Program’s previous IMPEP review, one specialist was assigned the primary duties

of reviewing all SS&D registrations. Two additional specialists were designated for concurrence

reviews. The principal SS&D reviewer signs all registration sheets and a concurrence review is

performed by either the Program Manager or one of two other designated specialist. The principal

reviewer has a Bachelor of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering with additional courses in

Mechanical Engineering. In addition, this individual performed “on the job training” for two weeks

in the NRC’s Materials Safety Branch. The other Specialists that perform concurrence reviews

and the Program Manager have had several years experience in licensing and inspection

activities, and have attended the SS&D workshops sponsored by NRC. The Program Manager

and the principal SS&D reviewer are committed to maintaining a high degree of quality in their

SS&D reviews. The team determined that the reviewers meet the technical training required for

SS&D reviews as described under the guidance.

4.2.3 Evaluation of Defects and Incidents Regarding SS&Ds

No incidents or defects related to SS&Ds were reported with these devices (products) during the

review period. The team also verified that there were no reported incidents through discussions

with the SS&D reviewers and a review of the incidents as discussed under Section 3.5. An online search by manufacturer utilizing the NMED system was conducted by the team 

prior to the review, and no incidents were identified that were related to any malfunctioning

devices or products considered during this review. During the review, discussions were held with

the SS&D reviewers and the individual responsible for entering and searching for data through the
Georgia Final Report Page 14

NMED system. Program staff demonstrated their abilities to conduct computer searches for

NMED data concerning specified SS&D devices and manufacturers.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Georgia’s performance

with respect to the indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, be found

satisfactory.

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program

In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statement, "Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in

Discontinuance of NRC Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement" to allow

a State to seek an amendment for the regulation of LLRW as a separate category. Those States

with existing Agreements prior to 1981 were determined to have continued LLRW disposal

authority without the need of an amendment. Although Georgia has LLRW disposal authority,

NRC has not required States to have a program for licensing a LLRW disposal facility until such

time as the State has been designated as a host State for a LLRW disposal facility. When an

Agreement State has been notified or becomes aware of the need to regulate a LLRW disposal

facility, they are expected to put in place a regulatory program which will meet the criteria for an

adequate and compatible LLRW disposal program. There are no plans for a LLRW disposal

facility in Georgia. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found Georgia’s performance to be

satisfactory for all seven performance indicators. Accordingly, the review team recommended and

the MRB concurred in finding the Georgia Agreement State Program to be adequate and

compatible with NRC's program. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full

review will be in approximately 4 years. 

Below is a summary list of recommendations, as mentioned in earlier sections of the report, for

evaluation and implementation, as appropriate, by the State. Also, the good practice noted in the

report is identified.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. The review team recommends that the Program review all Georgia licenses to ascertain if

they require financial assurance, and take appropriate action on each affected license to

ensure that all licenses meet the State’s financial assurance requirements. (Section 3.4) 

GOOD PRACTICE:

1. The review team identified the Program’s policy of conducting quality assurance and

quality control inspections on all SS&D registrants to ensure accuracy and consistency in

the production of sources and devices as a good practice. (Section 4.2) 
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Georgia Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Appendix F Sealed Source & Device Casework Reviews

Attachment May 24, 2000 Letter from Harold Reheis

Georgia’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Mark Shaffer, Region IV Team Leader

Richard Woodruff, Region II Technical Staffing and Training

Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

William Silva, Texas Technical Quality of Inspections

Status of Materials Inspection Program

Vivian Campbell, Region IV Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

Kevin Hsueh, STP Response to Incidents and Allegations

Legislation and Program Elements Required

 for Compatibility 
APPENDIX B

GEORGIA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

and

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

and

PROGRAM COORDINATION BRANCH

ORGANIZATION CHART

(SEE ML003721959)