Performance audit, Radiation Regulatory Agency, Radiation Regulatory Hearing Board

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT

RADIATION REGULATORY

HEARING BOARD

Report to the Arizona Legislature

By the Auditor General

November 1984

84- 9

DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA

AUDITOR GENERAL

STATE OF ARIZONA

OFFICE OF THE

AUDITOR GENERAL

November 8, 1984

Members o f the Arizona Legislature

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor

Mr. Charles F. Tedford, Director

Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency

Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance

Audit of the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency and the Arizona Radiation

Regulatory Hearing Board. This report i s i n response t o an

A p r i l 27, 1983, resolution o f the J o i n t Legislative Oversight Committee.

The performance audit was conducted as a part o f the Sunset Review set

f o r t h i n A. R. S. § § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.

This performance a u d i t r e p o r t i s submitted t o the Arizona State

Legislature f o r use i n determining whether t o continue the Arizona

Radiation Regul atory Agency and the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Hearing

Board beyond i t s scheduled termination date o f July 1, 1986. The report

addresses the e f f i c i e n c y and effectiveness o f the Agency's X- ray and

radiation material s inspection program, and the adequacy o f the Agency's

Nuclear Emergency Management Fund f i n a n c i a l support.

Ply s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased t o discuss or c l a r i f y items i n the report.

Respectfully submitted,

~ o uaY~ Rl. Norton

Auditor General

Staff: William Thomson

Peter N. Francis

Stephen G. Adel s t e i n

Jayne M. Hewitt

Anthony J. Guarino

Dennis B. Murphy

Enclosure

1 1 1 WEST MONROE SUITE 600 PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85003 ( 602) 255- 4385

SUMMARY

The Office o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t o f the

Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency ( ARRA) i n response t o an A p r i l 27,

1983, r e s o l u t i o n o f the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This

performance audit was conducted as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n

Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) § § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.

The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency was established i n 1980 t o replace

the Arizona Atomic Energy Commission. The Agency's purpose i s t o protect

the pub1 i c health, safety and welfare i n a l l matters concerned w i t h the

use, storage and disposal o f r a d i a t i o n sources. The Agency does t h i s by

1 icensing r a d i o a c t i ve material s, r e g i s t e r i n g r a d i a t i o n machines, and

8 p e r i o d i c a l l y inspecting a1 1 1 icensees and registrants. I n addition, the

Agency's major responsibil i t i e s i n c l ude providing technical assistance f o r

incidents or emergencies i nvol ving radiation, and conducting environmental

surveillance around any f i x e d nuclear f a c i l i t y or uranium operation.

I,

Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency's

Inspection A c t i v i t i e s Could Be Improved ( pages 15- 28)

The Agency does not conduct a1 1 i t s inspections i n a timely manner. X- ray

machine and r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s inspections are not always done i n

accordance w i t h accepted c r i t e r i a regarding i nspection frequency. For

example, 29 percent o f the X- ray inspections reviewed i n the audit

exceeded Agency c r i t e r i a , almost h a l f of which exceeded the c r i t e r i a by

more than 6 months. Agency c r i t e r i a c a l l for X- ray inspections every 2 t o

4 years, depending on the type of r e g i s t r a t i o n . The more time t h a t passes

between inspections the greater the public health r i s k . Untimeliness i s

p a r t i a l l y the resul t o f an inadequate inspection schedul ing system. I n

addition, high turnover of professional staff has helped decrease

inspection frequency. Furthermore, the need t o devote resources t o the

Agency's Pal o Verde Nuclear Generating Station responsibil i t i e s serves t o

reduce the manpower avail able f o r inspections.

The X- ray and radioactive materials inspection programs would benefit

greatly from the development of a systematic scheduling system. If such a

system were kept up to date, the Agency could concentrate i t s resources on

those f a c i l i t i e s that most urgently need to be inspected. In addition,

the Agency should imp1 ement sal ary increases recommended by the Personnel

Division of the Department of Administration and should continue to

evaluate i t s abil i ty to retain professional s t a f f .

The Arizona Radiation Reaulatorv Aaencv

1

Of I t s tnforcement Actions ( pages 29- 33)

The Agency could take stronger or more timely enforcement actions i n some

instances. The X- ray program's enforcement philosophy seems t o r e s u l t i n

limited action in some cases that warrant stronger action. Actions that

were taken were often poorly documented i n Agency f i l e s , making i t

d i f f i c u l t to assess enforcement effectiveness. In addition, i n the

radi oacti ve materi a1 s program, enforcement actions were not ful ly

documented for some cases and follow- up actions were sometimes not taken

on a timely basis. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also noted

timeliness and documentation problems i n i t s most recent review of the

radioacti ve material s program. Further, coordination and communication

w i t h State medical boards coul d be improved.

The Agency should pursue stronger enforcement actions i n cases that merit

such actions. The Agency should also ensure that all licensing and

enforcement actions a r e f u l l y documented and taken on a timely basis.

Finally, the Agency should communicate with the appropriate State medical

board when a practitioner i s found to repeatedly expose patients to

radiation 1 eve1 s exceeding establ ished norms.

The Arizona Radiation Reaul atorv Aaencv

Has Not Recei ved N u c ~ ~ E m e r g e n cMya nagement

Funds Sufficient To Cover the Costs Of I t s

Pal o Verde Activities ( ~ a q e s41 - 55)

The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency has not received adequate funding

from the Nuclear Emergency Management Fund ( NEMF) to finance a1 1 costs

re1 a t i ng t o i t s Pal o Verde Nuclear Generating Station i nvol vement. ARRA

has not adequately tracked i t s Palo Verde related costs and therefore, has

been underestimating these costs. I n addition, the Arizona Division o f

Emergency Services, the administrator o f the NEMF, has not requested

s u f f i c i e n t funds t o cover ARRA's estimates. Emergency Services improperly

l i m i t e d i t s NEMF recommendation t o an amount budgeted by Arizona Public

Service Company. Consequently, ARRA has financed more than $ 1 60,000 o f

i t s Palo Verde costs over the past 2 years w i t h i t s General Fund

appropriations. Because Emergency Services did not request s u f f i c i e n t

funds t o cover a l l Palo Verde related costs, A. R. S. $ 26- 306.01 was

violated. A. R. S. $ 26- 306.01. B requires the Arizona D i vision o f Emergency

Services t o make an annual recommendation t o the Legislature which i s a

reasonable estimate o f an amount necessary t o develop, maintain and

support the State nuclear emergency response plan.

ARRA should track i t s actual Palo Verde related expenditures. This

information should be used i n developing ARRA's NEMF requests. The

Division o f Emergency Services shoul d comply w i t h the provisions o f A. R. S.

926- 306.01 by recommending a NEMF assessment t h a t i s a reasonable estimate

of an amount adequate t o cover a l l costs of a l l agencies involved i n Palo

Verde r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s . The Legislature would then be i n a position t o

determine the appropriate NEMF assessment.

Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency's

1- rav Proaram Could Be Im~ roved( ~ a a e s5 7- 65)

The effectiveness and efficiency of the X- ray machine r e g i s t r a t i o n and fee

0 c o l l ection process coul d be improved. Currently, the Agency ' s requirement

t h a t a11 X- ray machines be registered i s not being adequately enforced.

Machine owners are not being held responsible f o r r e g i s t e r i n g t h e i r

machines. Consequently, the Agency's information on machine locations i s

C incomplete, which hinders the inspection process. I n addition, the

r e g i s t r a t i o n function i s not coordinated with the fee c o l l e c t i o n process.

Fees are due annually i n January but r e g i s t r a t i o n s take place anytime

throughout the year and are good for 4 years. As a r e s u l t , fee c o l l e c t i o n

i s unnecessarily i n e f f i c i e n t , and improperly requires inspector

invol vement. Final ly, the Agency's authori ty over radiation machine

i n s t a l l e r s i s not clear.

The fee coll ection process and registration function should be combined

into one annual process. Machine owners should be held responsible for

registering their own machines and paying re1 ated fees. Inspectors shoul d

not be involved i n fee collection. Finally, the Legislature should

consider amending the statutes to require radiation machine instal 1 ers to

report all installations to the Agency.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY

Page

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SUNSETFACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

FINDING I : ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY ' S

INSPECTION ACTIVITIES COULD BE IMPROVED . . . . . . . . . . 15

ARRA's Inspection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

Inspection Time1 iness Could Be Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Schedul ing Practices. Staffing Probl ems And PVNGS

Have Adversely Affected Inspection Time1 iness . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

FINDING 11: THE ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY

COULD STRENGTHEN AND IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS

OF ITS ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

ARRA' s Enforcement Authority I s Adequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

The X- ray Program's Enforcement Actions Could Be Stronger And Documentation Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0

Radioactive Material s Follow Up and Documentation Of Enforcement Actions Could Be Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Enforcement Philosophy ~ o udl B e More Aggressive . . . . . . . . . . 3 6

Coordination With Medical Boards Could Be Improved. . . . . . . . . 38

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

FINDING 111: THE ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY HAS NOT

RECEIVED NUCLEAR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FUNDS SUFFICIENT

TO COVER THE COSTS OF ITS PAL0 VERDE ACTIVITIES . . . . . 41

ARRA Has S i g n i f i c a n t PVNGS Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

ARRA Has Paid For A Considerable Portion O f I t s PVNGS

A c t i v i t i e s With General Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Arizona D i v i s i o n Of Emergency Services Has Not

Requested S u f f i c i e n t NEMFs For ARRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

NEMF Appropriations Not I n Line With Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

TABLE OF CONTENTS ( cont .

Page

FINDING I V : ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY'S

X- RAY PROGRAM COULD BE IMPROVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Agency Management O f Registration I s Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . 57

Machine I n s t a l l a t i o n s Should Be Reported To The Agency . . . . . . . 6 1

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

AREA FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

AGENCY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY HEARING BOARD

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

SUNSET FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

BOARD RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

APPENDIX

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEMORANDUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- 1

LIST OF TABLES

Page

TABLE 1 -

TABLE 2 -

TABLE 3 -

TABLE 4 -

TABLE 5 -

TABLE 6 -

TABLE 7 -

TABLE 8 -

Inspection and Licensing A c t i v i t i e s

For Fiscal Years 1980- 81 Through 1983- 84 . . . . . . . . . 5

General Fund And License And Registration

Fund Revenues And Expenditures For Fiscal

Years 1980- 81 Through 1983- 84. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Nuclear Emergency Management Fund Revenues

And Expenditures For Fiscal Years 1980- 81

Through 1984- 85. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Inspections Exceeding C r i t e r i a For The Period

January 1, 1982 Through A p r i l 30, 1984 . . . . . . . . . 19

Inspection Frequency Data For Twelve Hospitals . . . . . 22

Available FTE's I n The X- ray And Radioactive

Materials Programs For Fiscal Years 1981 Through 1984. . 26

Time Spent On PVNGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

NEMF Assistance And PVNGS Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . 45

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Office o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of

the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency i n response t o an A p r i l 27, 1983,

resolution o f the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This

performance audit was conducted as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n

A. R. S. § § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.

The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency ( ARRA) was established i n 1980 t o

rep1 ace the Arizona Atomic Energy Commission ( AAEC). ARRA's

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s include regulating the use and storage o f radioactive

material s, providing technical assistance f o r incidents, accidents, and

emergencies invol ving r a d i o a c t i ve material s, and conducting environmental

b

surveillance around any f i x e d nuclear f a c i l i t y or uranium operation.

Development O f Arizona's Radiation Protection Program

D Before 1964 the State Department o f Health conducted the a c t i v i t i e s

r e l a t i n g t o r a d i a t i o n control i n Arizona. The AAEC was created i n 1964;

however, the Department o f Heal t h continued t o perform inspections f o r

the AAEC u n t i l the end o f f i s c a l year 1967- 68.

I n 1967 Arizona became the 16th " Agreement State" by entering i n t o an

agreement with the United States Atomic Energy Commission ( c u r r e n t l y the

Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion) . This agreement transferred t o the State

regul atory control o f radioactive source material s, small quantities o f

special nuclear material, radioactive by- products from reactors and

uranium and thorium m i l 1 t a i l ings, and permanent disposal of 1 ow- 1 eve1

waste. I n 1980 the Governor amended t h i s agreement, opting not t o r e t a i n

a u t h o r i t y over uranium mining and m i l l t a i l i n g s . The State, however,

reserves the r i g h t t o regain t h i s a u t h o r i t y when it sees f i t t o do so.

ARRA' s activities are currently divided into the fol 1 owing five programs.

Radioactive Materials Licensing Program - This program carries out the

1 icensing of radiological materials, fulfil 1 i ng Arizona's Agreement State

requirements. Currently ARM oversees almost 400 radioactive material s

licensees. Inspection a c t i v i t i e s f o r the past 3 years and estimates for

fiscal year 1983- 84 are shown i n Table 1 ( page 5). Radioactive materials

1 icensure i ncl udes the regul ation of medical appl ications of radiol ogical

materi a1 s, gauges used i n highway and mineral industries, and radiographs

to determine depth. ARRA collects radioactive materials licensing fees

annually.

X- ray and Noni oni zi ng Compl i ance Program - This program i s responsi bl e

for the registration and periodic inspection of radiation machines i n

Arizona. X- ray i nspecti on acti vi ties are presented i n Tabl e 1.

Presently ARRA has more than 2,300 X- ray registrants. ARRA also registers

X- ray equi pment i nstal 1 ers and servi cers. Duri ng fiscal year 1 982- 83 the

nonionizing portion of the program handled laser and microwave

consul tations and surveys. Regi stration and compl iance i nspection of

nonionizing devices i s expected to s t a r t i n fiscal year 1984- 85

subsequent to promulgation of appl icabl e regulations.

Emergency Response Program - This program carries out ARRA's

responsibilities for providing technical support in the case of any

radiol ogical i nci dent, accident or emergency wi t h i n Arizona. Program

personnel developed a suppl ement to the off- site emergency response plan

for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station ( PVNGS). This supplement

provides directions for assessing and protecting against radiation

hazards in the event of an emergency. In addition, program staff train

and coordinate the Radio1 ogical Emergency Assistance Team ( REAT). The

REAT, which consists of volunteer personnel from county and State

agencies, assists ARRA i n f u l f i l 1 i ng i t s PVNGS off- si te monitoring

responsibil i ties. Tabl e 1 presents emergency response activities since

fiscal year 1980- 81 .

Environmental Survei 11 ance Program - This program's p r i o r i t y i s the

o f f - s i t e environmental monitoring around PVNGS. Preoperational

environmental surveillance and emergency sampling and analysis i n the

event o f an accident are p a r t o f the program's PVNGS r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

The s t a f f a1 so provides 1 aboratory analyses f o r ARRA' s other programs.

Laboratory analysis a c t i v i t i e s are shown i n Table 1.

Low- 1 evel Radioactive Waste Disposal Program - This newly establ i shed

program was set up t o oversee Arizona's provisions f o r disposal o f

low- 1 evel and possibly high- 1 evel radioactive waste. Program s t a f f , i n

conjunction w i t h the state o f California, drafted l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t w i l l

provide f o r a low- level waste compact w i t h California. The Arizona

Legislature passed t h i s 1 egi s l a t i on i n 1984; the C a l i f o r n i a Legi sl ature

adjourned i n 1984 without passing the l e g i s l a t i o n but w i l l reconsider the

proposal i n t h e i r next session i n January 1985.

Budget and Personnel

b

ARRA's revenues come from the General Fund, the Radiation Regulatory

Licensing and Registration Fund, and the Nucl ear Emergency Management

Fund ( NEMF). The NEMF was established i n f i s c a l year 1980- 81 t o provide

funding from the u t i l i t i e s f o r Arizona's nuclear generating s t a t i o n

D

emergency response a c t i v i t i e s . General Fund revenues and expenditures

f o r f i s c a l years 1979- 80 through 1982- 83 and estimated amounts for f i s c a l

year 1983- 84 are shown i n Table 2 ( page 6). NEMF revenues and

expenditures since f i s c a l year 1980- 81 are shown i n Tab1 e 3 ( page 6).

D

ARRA had 28 f u l l - t i m e equivalent positions i n f i s c a l year 1983- 84; two o f

these positions are funded from the NEMF. No a d d i t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s w i l l

be added i n f i s c a l year 1984- 85.

D

Audit Scope and Purpose

Our audit o f ARRA addressed issues set f o r t h i n the 12 Sunset Factors i n

A. R. S. $ 41- 2354. Additional detailed work was done on the following

issues.

@ Whether the Agency's inspection and enforcement activities are

effective and a t an adequate 1 eve1 .

@ Whether the Agency i s being properly reimbursed for i t s Palo

Verde related activities.

( I Whether efficiency and effectiveness can be improved i n the

foll owing administrative areas:

1. X- ray machine registration and fee col lection process.

2. Notification system regarding install ation of new

radiation machines.

In addition, we conducted a 1 imited review of ARRA's licensing and

registration fee system and of other states' systems for funding activity

re1 ated to nuclear generati ng stations.

The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the director and

staff of the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency for their cooperation

and assistance during the course of our audit.

TABLE 1

INSPECTION AND LICENSING ACTIVITIES

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1980- 81 THROUGH 1983- 84

Ac tua 1

1980- 81

Lab Sample Analyses 4,580

X- ray Registrants Inspected 90 7

Machines Inspected 1,442

Tubes Inspected 1,737

Microwave 5 0

Laser 2

Radioactive Material s Licenses 41 5

New Licenses and

License Renewals 4 7

Inspections 231

Emergency Response Incidents 5

Ac tua 1

1981 - 82

Actual Estimated

1982- 83 1983- 84

Source : Arizona Radiation Regul atory Agency budget request f o r f i s c a l

year 1984- 85

Ir: ( 1 ) Lab sample analyses increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f i s c a l year 1982- 83 as

a r e s u l t o f a s h i f t o f resources toward actual sample analysis and

away from i ni t i a l development o f 1 ab procedures.

( 2) X- ray inspection a c t i v i t y decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f i s c a l year

1982- 83 as a r e s u l t o f inspectors devoting time to: 1 ) the newly

established fee c o l l e c t i o n process, 2) Pal o Verde re1 ated a c t i v i t i e s ,

and 3) an attempt t o manually establish d e t a i l e d inspection

schedul i ng.

TABLE 2

GENERAL FUND AND LICENSE AND REGISTRATION FUND

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEARS 1980- 81 THROUGH 1983- 84

FY 1980- 81

Actual

Authorized Full - Time

Equi val ent Positions 2 7

Revenues:

General Fund

Appropriation $ 1,106,400

Licensing/

Registration Fees

Carry- Forward

From Prior Year

Total

Revenues $ 1.106.400 ( 1 )

Expenditures:

Personal Services 367,600

Employee Re1 ated 72,000

Professional/ Outside

Services 95,400

Travel :

In- State 26,300

Out- Of- State 13,000

Other Operating

Ex~ endtiu res 222 . OOO

~ ~ pmuent i 147; 900

Total

Expenditures 944,200

Amount Reverted to

General Fund 162,300

Licensing Fees

Carry- Forward

Remit To General Fund

FY 1981- 82 FY 1982- 83

Actual Actual

FY 1983- 84

Estimated

Total $ 1.106.500 $ 1.036.800 $ 1.029.200 $ 1.239.800

( 2 1

4

( 21

Sources: Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency unaudited annual reports for 1981

through 1983 and ARRA budget requests

( 1 ) Differences between revenues and expenditures i n fiscal year 1- 980- 81 through

1982- 83 are due to rounding and other immaterial discrepancies that ARRA 4

personnel coul d not expl ai n.

( 2) Totals for fiscal years 1982- 83 and 1983- 84 r e f l e c t both General Fund

appropriations plus accumulated 1 icensing fees; however these total s do not

ref1 ect amounts actually available to the Agency, as the Agency's expenditures

are 1 imited to its General Fund appropriation i n any one year. ( I

TABLE 3

NUCLEAR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1980- 81 THROUGH 1984- 85

FY 80- 81

Actual

FY 81 - 82

Actual

FY 82- 83 FY 83- 84

Actual Estimated

Full Time

Equival ent Posi tions

Revenues:

NEMF A1 location $ 30,400

Carry- Forward From

Prior Year

Total Revenues $ 30.400 ( 2 )

Expenditures :

Personal Services

Empl oyee Re1 a ted

Professional And

Outside Services

Travel :

In- State

Out- Of- State

Other Opera ti ng

Expenditures

Equipment 98,100 268,000 92,100

I)

25,000

Total

Expenditures 24,900 ( 1 ) 120,800 351,800 233,000 1 22,800

Carry- Forward 5,400 26,900 11,500 11,500 ( 3)

@ Total $ 30.300 ( 2 ) $ 147.700 ( 2) $ 363.300 ( 2 ) $ 244.500 $ 1 22.800

Sources: Revenues were obtained from Arizona Radiation Regul atory Agency appropriation

b i l l s . Expenditure detail was obtained from various ARRA documents.

( 1 ) Detailed expenditure data was not avail able f o r f i s c a l year 1980- 81.

8 ( 2) Differences between revenues and expenditures i n fiscal years 1980- 81 through

1982- 83 are due to rounding and other immaterial discrepancies that ARRA personnel

could not explain.

( 3) The difference between the carry- forward from fiscal year 1983- 84 and the

carry- forward t o fiscal year 1984- 85 is due to the fact that original estimates are

shown f o r f i s c a l year 1983- 84 expenditures; however, the Agency 1 ater projected that

C i t would incur vacancy savings and incorporated these savings i n its fiscal year

1984- 85 request, increasing the carry- f orward from fiscal year 1983- 84 ( see Fi ndi ng

111, page 46).

SUNSET FACTORS

I n accordance w i t h A. R. S. $ 41 - 2354, the Legi s l a t u r e s houl d consider the

f o l lowing 12 factors i n determining whether the Arizona Radiation

Regul atory Agency shoul d be continued or terminated.

1. Objective and purpose i n establishing the Agency

L e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n establ ishing the Arizona Radiation Regulatory

Agency ( ARRA) i s t o m i t i g a t e the r i s k s t o the public inherent i n

exposure t o radiation. Laws 1980, chapter 206 $ 1 states:

" It i s declared t o be the p o l i c y of t h i s state t o

protect the public health and safety by regulating the

use and sources of r a d i a t i o n t o provide f o r ( 1 ) use of

methods and procedures r e l a t i n g t o r a d i a t i o n which are

demonstrated t o be safe; and ( 2) maintaining exposure

to sources o f r a d i a t i o n i n amounts as low as i s

reasonably achievable by means o f good r a d i a t i o n

protection planning, practice and enforcement."

Consequently, the Agency's overall objective i s t o safeguard the

public health and safety i n a l l matters concerned w i t h the use,

storage, and disposal o f sources o f radiation. This includes taking

necessary action w i t h regard t o accidents, incidents or emergencies

invol ving radiation.

2. The effectiveness w i t h which the Agency has met i t s objective and

purpose and the e f f i c i e n c y w i t h which the Agency has operated

The Agency has generally met i t s objectives and purpose. The Agency

1 icenses radioactive material s and r e g i s t e r s r a d i a t i o n machines. Both

licensees and r e g i s t r a n t s are subject t o compliance inspections.

However, the Agency could improve i t s effectiveness i n the area of

compl i ance inspection frequency, enforcement of i t s r u l es and

regulations, and documentation o f enforcement a c t i v i t i e s ( see

Finding I, page 15, and Finding 11, page 29).

ARRA has e f f e c t i v e l y responded t o r a d i a t i o n - r e l a t e d emergencies and

incidents w i t h i n the State. ARRA has been praised f o r i t s actions

re1 a t i ng t o a r e c e n t i n c i d e n t i nvol ving r a d i o a c t i v e rebar imported

from Mexico. ARRA has also been r a t e d h i g h l y i n past exercises t h a t

tested the State's capabil i t i e s f o r reaction t o p o t e n t i a l emergencies

i n v o l ving r a d i a t i o n emissions from the Pal o Verde Nuclear Generating

Station.

3. The extent t o which the Agency has operated w i t h i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t

The Agency's inspection, emergency response, and environmental P

s u r v e i l lance functions serve the publ i c i n t e r e s t by attempting t o

monitor and mi t i g a t e the publ i c ' s exposure t o r a d i a t i o n . However, the

p u b l i c i n t e r e s t could be b e t t e r served i f the Agency adopted more of

an enforcement oriented philosophy ( see Finding 11, page 29). With

regard t o emergency response, the U. S. Nucl ear Regul atory Commission

( NRC) r e c e n t l y commended ARRA f o r i t s handling o f the 1984

contaminated Mexican rebar incident. ARRA was praised f o r ". . . prompt and thorough actions taken t o c o n t r o l t h e r a d i o l o g i c a l

hazards of t h i s i n c i d e n t and p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h and safety."

4. The extent t o which r u l e s and regulations promulgated by the Agency

a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the 1 egis1 a t i ve mandate

The Agency has been updating i t s r u l e s and regulations over t h e p a s t 3

years. Several a r t i c l e s are close t o being approved f o r consistency

w i t h s t a t u t e s b y t h e Attorney General. However, a problem w i t h one

a r t i c l e arose d u r i n g t h e Attorney General ' s review w i t h regard t o a

requirement f o r the r e g i s t r a t i o n o f X- ray machine i n s t a l l e r s t h a t was

i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the statutes ( see Finding I V , page 57). Other

a r t i c l e s have not y e t been reviewed by the Attorney General and are a t

various stages o f development.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has c i t e d ARRA f o r f a i l u r e t o have

updated regul a t i ons t h a t a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r s . This consistency

i s a requirement o f ARRA's agreement w i t h the NRC. The NRC noted t h i s

problem i n l e t t e r s t o ARRA dated January 1982, May 1983 and June 1984.

5. The extent t o which the Aaencv has encouraaed i n ~ u tfr om the ~ u bi cl

before promulgating i t s r u l e s and regulations and the extent t o which

it has informed the p u b l i c as t o i t s actions and t h e i r expected impact

on t h e p u b l i c

The Agency f i l e s notices w i t h the Secretary o f State regarding public

r u l e s and regulations hearings. Four such f i l i n g s have been made

since 1982. The Agency also sends notices o f hearings t o trade and

professional organizations. The Agency appears t o have compl i e d w i t h

open meeting law requirements f o r these hearings. The Agency also

generally informs the p u b l i c o f i t s a c t i v i t i e s through a periodic

news1 e t t e r and press re1 eases.

6. The extent t o which the Agency has been able t o i n v e s t i g a t e and

resol ve complaints t h a t are w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n

Compl a i nts t h a t have been recei ved appeared t o have been adequately

i n v e s t i g a t e d and resolved. The Agency generally does not appear t o

r e c e i v e a g r e a t volume o f complaints from the p u b l i c regarding

r a d i a t i o n hazards. However, approximately 6,000 i n q u i r i e s were

r e c e n t l y received from the media and t h e p u b l i c regarding r a d i a t i o n

hazards o f imported Mexican rebar steel.

7. The extent t o which the Attorney General or any o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e

agency of State government has the a u t h o r i t y t o prosecute actions

under enabl i ng 1 egi s l ation

The Agency has s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o assess c i v i l penal t i e s ,

impound dangerous radi a t i on sources, and suspend, modify or revoke

1 icenses. A. R. S. $ 30- 685 s p e c i f i c a l ly g i ves the Attorney General the

a u t h o r i t y upon Agency request t o make a p p l i c a t i o n t o the appropriate

court f o r an order enjoining any a c t t h a t v i o l a t e s ARRA's statutes,

rules or regulations. I n addition, A. R. S. $ 30- 687. A requires the

Attorney General t o b r i n g actions necessary t o c o l l e c t c i v i l

penalties. Further, A. R. S. $ 30- 689 establishes t h a t any person

v i o l a t i n g ARRA's statutes, rules, or regulations i s g u i l t y o f a class

2 misdemeanor. This a u t h o r i t y granted by t h e s t a t u t e s appears t o be

adequate.

8. The extent t o which the Agency has addressed d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the

enabl ing statutes which prevent it from f u l f i l l ing i t s s t a t u t o r y

mandate

The Agency proposed 1 egis1 ation t o enabl e a 1 ow- 1 eve1 waste disposal

compact w i t h the state o f California. This l e g i s l a t i o n was passed as

Senate B i l l 1365 i n 1984. This b i l l designates ARRA as the agency

responsible f o r administrative and enforcement duties i n Arizona not

s p e c i f i c a l l y assigned t o the Governor. At the present time, the

Agency does not perceive any d e f i c i e n c i e s i n i t s statutes.

9. The extent t o which changes are necessary i n the laws o f the Agency t o

adequately comply w i t h the f a c t o r s 1 i s t e d i n the Sunset Law

One change i s needed i n the Agency's statutes. A. R. S. $ 30- 672 should

be amended t o g i v e t h e Agency the a u t h o r i t y t o r e q u i r e r a d i a t i o n

machine i n s t a l l e r s t o f i l e reports on a l l i n s t a l l a t i o n s o f machines

( see Finding I V Y page 57).

10. The extent t o which t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the Agency would s i g n i f i c a n t l y

harm the publ i c heal th, safety o r we1 fare

Termination of the Agency could s i g n i f i c a n t l y harm the publ i c heal t h y e

safety and we1 fare. Radiation exposure poses consi derabl e heal t h

r i s k s . E f f o r t s should be made t o keep p u b l i c r a d i a t i o n exposure as

1 ow as reasonably possible t o mi t i g a t e these risks. ARRA's inspection

( i n c l uding 1 icensing and r e g i s t r a t i o n ) , environmental s u r v e i l lance,

and emergency response a c t i v i t i e s are important t o t h i s goal.

11. The extent t o which the 1 eve1 o f regulation exercised by the Agency i s

appropriate and whether less or more stringent l e v e l s o f regulation

would be a ~ ~ r o ~ r i a t e

Currently, the l e v e l o f regulation exercised by the Agency appears to

be generally appropriate. However, the Agency could sometimes take

stronger enforcement actions as a r e s u l t o f i t s radioacive materials

and X- ray inspection a c t i v i t i e s ( see Finding 11, page 29). There are

also several areas i n t o which the Agency could expand i n the f u t u r e i f

deemed necessary, including drinking water analysis, nonionizing

surveillance ( microwave and lasers), monitoring uranium m i l l t a i l i n g s ,

monitoring material s used i n home construction f o r r a d i o a c t i v i t y , and

devel oping techniques f o r recovery a f t e r a major accident i nvol ving

r a d i a t i o n ( such as a t a nuclear plant).

12. The extent t o which the Agency has used p r i v a t e contractors i n the

performance o f i t s duties and how e f f e c t i v e use o f p r i v a t e contractors

coul d be accom~ ils h ed

The Agency does not use p r i v a t e contractors t o a s i g n i f i c a n t degree i n

the performance of i t s primary duties. However, the Agency does

contract out analysis o f i t s employees' f i l m badges. These f i l m

badges are used t o assess r a d i a t i o n exposure of i n d i v i d u a l s who work

near r a d i a t i o n sources. I n addition, p r i vate contractors have been

used for s t a f f t r a i n i n g ( p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l a t i n g t o emergency response

and Palo Verde), preparation of educational material s, evaluation of

Palo Verde emergency response plans, instrument c a l i b r a t i o n , and

assistance i n s e t t i n g up a new computer system i n the environmental

surveil 1 ance 1 aboratory. ARRA's d i r e c t o r considers using p r i vate

contractors whenever the experti se or manpower i s not avai 1 abl e

in- house t o perform a needed function.

FINDING I

ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY'S INSPECTION ACTIVITIES COULD BE

IMPROVED

The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency ( ARRA) coul d improve i t s

inspection a c t i v i t i e s . The Agency, through the X- ray compliance and

radioactive material s programs, has not conducted timely i nspections o f

X- ray machines and radioactive materials. Scheduling practices, s t a f f i n g

problems and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station a c t i v i t i e s have

adverse1 y impacted the X- ray and radioactive materi a1 s programs.

ARRA' s Inspection Programs

ARRA i s instructed by statute t o " Regulate the use, storage and disposal

o f sources o f radiation." This rather broad mandate d i r e c t s the Agency t o

adopt inspection and enforcement regulations and programs t o adequately

protect the public from excessive exposure t o r a d i a t i o n sources.

Currently, ARRA operates two regulatory programs - X- ray compliance and

radioactive materials. Each program i s empowered t o regulate the use and

possession o f various sources of radiation. These programs serve t o

protect the public from radiation health hazards.

X- Ray Compl iance - The X- ray compl iance program regulates i o n i z i n g

( X- rays) and nonionizing ( lasers, microwaves, radar and other forms o f

electromagnetic r a d i a t i o n ) r a d i a t i o n sources. To accompl i sh i t s

regulatory duty, the X- ray program registers f a c i l i t i e s t h a t possess

i o n i z i n g r a d i a t i on- produci ng sources. Approximately 2,400 regi s t r a t i ons

are on f i l e with the Agency a t t h i s time, representing 4,447 X- ray

machines and 5,489 X- ray tubes, according t o the X- ray program manager.

I n addition, the X- ray compliance program i s required t o conduct i n i t i a l

and periodic inspections o f registered f a c i 1 i t i e s possessing i o n i z i n g

r a d i a t i o n producing sources. The frequency of the periodic inspections i s

determined by c r i t e r i a established by the X- ray program and i s compatible

with c r i t e r i a developed by the Conference of Radiation Control Program

Directors. The Conference's c r i t e r i a are meant t o be guidelines f o r state

programs. The X- ray program' s schedule, which requires inspections every

2 t o 4 years depending on f a c i l i t y type, i s presented i n Table 4 alongside

the Conference ' s g u i del i nes.

Beyond p e r i o d i c o r r o u t i n e inspections, both the X- ray program and the

Conference consider t h e i n s p e c t i o n o f new f a c i l i t i e s a high p r i o r i t y .

While the Conference suggests t h a t i n i t i a l inspections be conducted w i t h i n

1 year o f i n s t a l l a t i o n , the Agency i s more s t r i n g e n t , r e q u i r i n g t h a t

i n i t i a l inspections be conducted w i t h i n 30 days o f i n s t a l l a t i o n . I n

addition, the Conference recommends t h a t every f a c i l i t y be inspected or

surveyed a t l e a s t once every 5 years, while ARRA allows a maximum o f 4

years.

Radioactive Materials - Under the Agreement State Contract w i t h the

Nuclear Regul atory Commission ( NRC) , ARRA i s responsi b l e f o r t h e c o n t r o l

of r a d i o a c t i v e by- product material.* This contract requires t h a t ARRA's

r u l e s and regulations be compatible w i t h the NRC's Administrative Law

Code, 10 CFR 20. To f u l f i l l the Agreement State Contract, t h e r a d i o a c t i v e

material s program 1 icenses the users of by- product material s.

Approximately 300 s p e c i f i c and 150 general medical 1 icenses are c u r r e n t l y

issued by the Agency according t o the program manager.

The r a d i o a c t i ve materials program i s responsible for conducting i n i t i a l

and periodic inspections of licensed r a d i a t i o n source users. The

frequency o f inspections i s determined by c r i t e r i a establ ished by the

Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ARRA, through the Agreement

State Contract, i s required t o " use i t s best e f f o r t s t o maintain

continuing c o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h the NRC's program" of regulating r a d i a t i o n

source users. Although the NRC's c r i t e r i a are meant t o be the minimum

l e v e l of inspection frequency, the Agency had r e c e n t l y changed from i t s own

* By- product material i s any r a d i oacti ve material ( except special

nuclear material ) y i e l d e d i n o r made r a d i o a c t i v e by exposure t o the

r a d i a t i o n i n c i d e n t t o the process o f producing o r u t i l i z i n g special

nuclear material s. Special nuclear materials i n q u a n t i t i e s s u f f i c i e n t

t o form c r i t i c a l mass are licensed by the NRC.

more stringent c r i t e r i a * t o a version o f the NRC's c r i t e r i a . * *

Radiation Health Risks - ARRA's two inspection programs were created t o

p r o t e c t the pub1 i c from the potenti a1 ly serious heal t h r i s k s i nvol v i ng

excessive exposure t o radiation. The Committee on Federal Research on the

Biological and Health E f f e c t s o f Ionizing Radiation has c l a s s i f i e d four

major types o f e f f e c t s o f i o n i z i n g radiation:

" Cancer may be induced . . . i n d i f f e r e n t tissues and

appear a f t e r various lengths o f time ( l a t e n t periods)

f o l 1 owing r a d i a t i o n exposure. The minimal 1 atent

periods may vary from 2 [ years] f o r leukemia t o 15

[ years] o r longer f o r some s o l i d cancers.

Genetic or h e r i t a b l e changes . . . may occur i n . . .

[ offspring] and i n f u t u r e generations derived from

exposed humans.

. . . developmental changes may occur during the

development o f the embryo or fetus exposed t o r a d i a t i o n

during gestation.

Degenerative changes may occur as expressions o f l o c a l

r a d i a t i o n i n j u r y , e. g. , cataractogenesi s, impai rment of

f e r t i l ity, and a1 tered immune responses. "

ARRA must adopt strong inspection and enforcement programs i f the public

i s t o be properly protected from such hazards.

Inspection Timeliness

Could Be Improved

ARRA could increase the frequency o f X- ray and radioactive materials

inspections. W i t h i n the X- ray compl iance program, excessive time has

elapsed between routine inspections o f registered r a d i a t i o n sources. I n

addition, the radioactive material s program has experienced d i f f i c u l t y i n

conducting timely inspections o f licensed r a d i a t i o n source users.

* The Agency's c r i t e r i a required an inspection of a l l radioactive

material s 1 icenses wi t h i n 18 months.

** The exact time o f t h i s t r a n s i t i o n i s unclear. The NRC states t h a t

ARRA changed i n A p r i l of 1983, while the radioactive material s program

manager has stated t h a t the t r a n s i t i o n took place sometime around

January o f 1984.

X- ray Inspections Have Been Untimely - The X- ray compliance program has

had d i f f i c u l t y conducting inspections i n a timely manner. A random sample

o f the program's r e g i s t r a t i o n f i l e s indicated problems with inspection

timeliness.* I n many instances the time between inspections f o r

i n d i v i d u a l f aci 1 i ty type exceeds Agency and n a t i onal c r i t e r i a .

Furthermore, the survey i d e n t i f i e d cases i n which excessive time elapsed

between new i n s t a l 1 a t i ons and i ni ti a1 inspections.

Tab1 e 4 ill ustrates the untimel i ness o f the X- ray program's inspections.

Twenty- nine percent o f the inspections reviewed i n the random sample

exceeded the Agency's c r i t e r i a , almost ha1 f o f which exceeded the c r i t e r i a

by more than 6 months. I n addition, 11 percent o f the f a c i l i t i e s reviewed

were past due f o r t h e i r next inspection as o f A p r i l 30, 1984, under the

Agency's c r i t e r i a .

* A random sample o f the Agency's r e g i s t r a t i o n and licensing f i l e s was

u t i l i z e d i n which 250 X- ray r e g i s t r a t i o n f i l e s and 70 radioactive

materi a1 s 1 icensi ng f i 1 es were drawn.

18

TABLE 4

INSPECTIONS EXCEEDING CRITERIA

FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1982 THROUGH APRIL 30, 1984

Time Since

6 mos. More Than Last Inspection

Number of Total Inspections or Less 6 Mos. Over Over Agency C r i t e r i a

Registrant F a c i l i t i e s Inspections Within Agency Over Agency Agency 6 Mos. or 6 Mos. or Agency Conference

Category I n Sample Conducted C r i t e r i a C r i t e r i a C r i t e r i a Less More C r i t e r i a C r i t e r i a

Hospital s

Medical

Chi ropractic

Veterinary

Dental

I n d u s t r i a l

Podi a t r i c

Osteopathic

Educational

Total

Source: Random sample o f ARRA's X- ray r e g i s t r a n t f i l e s

Extreme instances of untimely inspections were also evident. The survey

noted individual instances of registered f a c i l i t i e s that had not been

inspected for substantial periods of time. For example:

a Four hospital s had n o t been inspected for more than 36 months.

a Six medical f a c i l i t i e s had not been inspected for more than 40

months.

a One veterinary facility had not been inspected for more than 87

months.

a The University of Arizona Medical Center, w i t h almost 50

regi stered machines, had not been i nspected si nce September of

1981 ( 31 months).

Initial inspections of f a c i l i t i e s w i t h newly installed machines have also

been untimely. Many f a c i l i t i e s operated well over the program's 30- day

c r i t e r i a before an initial inspection occurred. The survey identified

that since 1981 there were 14 f a c i l i t i e s w i t h new machine installations

that operated for more than 12 months before an initial inspection was

conducted.

Extreme cases of untimely initial inspections were also identified. For

example, a t the time of the random sample:

a Amedical facility had operated for 42months w i t h o u t an initial

inspection.

a A dental facility had operated for 57 months w i t h o u t an initial

inspection.

A veterinary facility had operated for more than 87 months

without an initial , inspection.

Untimely Radioactive Material s Inspections - The radioactive material s

program could also improve i t s inspection frequency. A random sample of

the radioactive materials 1 icenses identified numerous instances i n which

excessive time elapsed between inspections of licensed users. These

intervals exceed inspection frequency criteria established by the Agency

and, according t o the Nuclear Regul atory Commission, have 1 owered the

program's frequency o f inspections t o the minimum accepted by the Nuclear

Regul atory Commission.

Several cases o f untimely inspections were i d e n t i f i e d through the random

sample, encompassing the 18 types o f r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s 1 icenses.

However, the sample r e s u l t s on the inspection frequency o f hospitals best

i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s point.

Hospital inspections are a high p r i o r i t y o f ARRA and the NRC since the

d i r e c t use o f by- product material w i t h p a t i e n t s and the use o f unsealed

sources* c r e a t e a greater r i s k t o pub1 i c health and safety. A1 though NRC

c r i t e r i a require an inspection o f each hospital a t a minimum o f once every

24 months, the Agency believes t h a t t h e p o t e n t i a l hazards warrant an

D inspection o f hospitals a t a minimum o f once every 18 months.

Twelve o f the approximately 44 hospitals licensed by ARRA f o r the

possession o f r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s were reviewed i n the random sample.

R A l l 12 o f these h o s p i t a l s a r e 1 icensed t o use by- product material and

unsealed sources f o r diagnostic and therapeutic treatment. Analyses

included the number o f days since the l a s t inspection was conducted and

the number o f days between previous inspections. Table 5 summarizes the

inspection frequency o f the 12 hospital s.

* Unsealed sources a r e r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s t h a t are not permanently

bonded or f i x e d i n capsules t o prevent release o f radiation.

TABLE 5

INSPECTION FREQUENCY DATA FOR 12 HOSPITALS

Date of Time Elapsed Date of Time Elapsed

Hospital Last Inspection ( Months) ) Previous Inspection ( Months) ( 2 )

August 1982

March 1 982

March 1982

March 1984

May 1982

March 1984

March 1 984

December 1983

March 1 984

April 1984

April 1984

April 1984

August 1980

December 1981

( 3)

September 1982

( 3

( 3

April 1982

September 1980

December 1982

December 1982

Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from the random sample of

radioactive material s 1 icense f i l e s ( I

( 1) Denotes the months elapsed between the date of 1 ast inspection and

the date the sample was taken ( May 25, 1984).

( 2) Denotes the months elapsed between the date of 1 ast inspection and

the previous inspection of the facility.

( 3) Last inspection was i n i t i a l inspection of the f a c i l i t y . ( I

Tab1 e 5 reveal s that the radioactive material s program, in most instances,

did not meet i t s own inspection frequency c r i t e r i a for conducting hospital

inspections and, i n some instances, exceeded the minimum c r i t e r i a

4

established by the NRC.

Presently, the program's frequency of inspections is a t the minimum level

accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In its most recent audit, I

the NRC calculated the backlog of all inspections a t 10 t o 25 percent.*

* The NRC employed two methods to calculate the percentage of backlog: 4

1) Dividing the number of overdue inspections i n the 1- year period of

April 8, 1983, to April 8, 1984, by the total number of radioactive

licenses - 30 divided by 288 = 10.4 percent. 2) Dividing the number

of overdue inspections during the 1- year period by the number of

scheduled inspections during the same period - 30 divided by 117 =

25.6 percent. 4

According t o the NRC, the Agency's i n a b i l i t y t o maintain a consistent

l e v e l o f inspection frequency w i t h i n the X- ray compliance and radioactive

materials programs could adversely affect pub1 i c health and safety by

p o t e n t i a l l y increasing the number of items o f noncompliance c i t e d on

subsequent overdue inspections. An expert i n the f i e l d stated t h a t the

more time t h a t passes between inspections, the greater t h e h e a l t h r i s k .

This i s the underlying premise f o r s e t t i n g inspection frequency c r i t e r i a .

Schedul ing Practices, S t a f f i n g Problems And

PVNGS Have Adverse1 v Affected Insoectinn Time1 iness

The X- ray compliance and r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s programs' inspection

time1 iness have been adversely impacted by schedul ing practices, s t a f f i n g

problems and Pal o Verde Nuclear Generating Station ( PVNGS) a c t i v i t i e s .

Inadequate Sc hedul ing Practices Have Decreased Inspecti on Time1 i ness - An

inadequate system o f schedul ing X- ray r e g i s t r a t i o n and r a d i o a c t i ve

material 1 icensing inspections has contributed t o the Agency's i nabil i ty

t o conduct inspections i n a timely manner. Both programs use a manually

maintained card f i 1 e* t o schedule inspections, which i s i n e f f i c i e n t and

contributes t o the untimeliness o f inspections. Automation of the

schedul ing system could g r e a t l y increase inspection e f f i c i e n c y .

a The X- ray compl iance program's inspection schedul ing inadequacies are

due t o the lack o f a prepared schedule. Presently, the program's

primary scheduling tool i s a card f i l e containing information on the

more than 2,400 r e g i s t r a t i o n s issued by the Agency. This system o f

schedul ing i s i n e f f i c i e n t and r e s u l t s i n untimely inspections.

The X- ray program does not schedule inspections from a predetermined

schedule. The current method a1 1 ows the program's inspectors to

select a majority o f t h e i r own inspection s i t e s from the card f i l e .

* The cards are f i l e d alphabetically w i t h i n subgroups of county and

d i s c i p l i n e and each card has the r e g i s t r a n t o r licensee's name and

address, the number o f registered X- ray machines and tubes or the type

of licensed r a d i a t i o n source, and the date o f l a s t inspection.

Scheduling inspections from the card f i l e i s i n e f f i c i e n t . I n many

instances, f a c i l i t i e s are inspected because they are noticed by an

inspector during the inspection o f another f a c i l i t y w i t h i n the area.

Consequently, some f a c i l i t i e s are inspected before required by Agency

c r i t e r i a , while other f a c i 1 i t i e s remain uninspected f o r unacceptable

periods.

Another probl em i nvol ves the vul nerabil i ty o f the cards themselves.

In the past, cards have been l o s t or misplaced. Consequently,

f a c i l i t i e s have gone without inspections f o r years without Agency

personnel being aware of t h e i r existence, a1 though a separate

r e g i s t r a t i o n f i l e f o r the f a c i l i ty was maintained by the Agency.

I n addition t o problems caused by the card f i l e , inspections are often

p r i o r i t i z e d based on geographic 1 ocation. According t o the X- ray

compliance program manager, t o compensate f o r a lack o f manpower,

inspections have been concentrated i n geographic areas t h a t contained

proportionately more r a d i a t i o n machines. Therefore, machines i n urban

areas have tended t o be inspected more frequently than machines i n

r u r a l areas. The program manager stated that the purpose o f t h i s

practice was t o keep the t o t a l number o f inspections per year a t an

acceptabl e 1 eve1 .

The radioactive materi a1 s program's i nspection schedul i ng problems are

also due t o an inadequate scheduling system. A1 though an 18 month

inspection schedule has been created, it f a i l s t o i d e n t i f y overdue

inspections, repeat v i o l a t o r s and follow- up inspections i n a timely

manner. I n addition, the current scheduling system does not r e f l e c t

the NRC's inspection frequency c r i t e r i a .

The r a d i o a c t i v e materials program u t i l i z e s a card f i l e t o generate an

18 month inspection schedule. The program manager reviews the cards

and establishes the p r i o r i t y and inspection frequency for each

license. Procedures f o r the use o f t h i s schedule c a l l f o r individual

inspectors t o select inspections t h a t are overdue or are due for the

current month. Those inspections not selected are assigned by the

program manager.

Once produced, the 18 month i nspection schedule i s i nfrequently

updated, because the cards are used as a source f o r the schedule.

Since the schedule becomes fixed once created, it i s d i f f i c u l t f o r the

status o f overdue inspections and inspections with previous c i t a t i o n s

of noncompliance, which require more attention from program personnel,

t o be r e f l e c t e d on the schedule i n a timely manner.

I n addition, the 18 month schedule does not r e f l e c t the NRC's

inspection frequency c r i t e r i a . As mentioned previously, the program

recently abandoned i t s own c r i t e r i a and adopted a version o f the NRC

inspection frequency c r i t e r i a . However, the 18 month schedul e from

which the Agency i s currently operating has not been altered t o

r e f l e c t t h i s substantial change i n the program's inspection

frequency. Due t o the i n f l e x i b i l i t y o f the fixed schedule, it was

d i f f i c u l t f o r the program manager t o make the necessary changes i n a

timely manner.

0 Automation of the X- ray compl iance and radioactive material s programs'

scheduling systems shoul d increase inspection frequency and

efficiency. It w i l l allow the programs t o engage i n longer range and

more systemati c schedul i ng , thereby increasing the programs ' abi 1 i ty

t o maintain an information data base on the status and condition o f

inspection and enforcement a c t i v i t i e s .

Other state radiation control programs, such as Georgia and South

Carol ina, have completely automated t h e i r 1 icensi ng f i l e s . Both

states have had favorable experiences with such a system, noting

considerabl e advantage over a manual schedul i ng system, p a r t i c u l a r l y

one derived from a card f i l e .

According t o the deputy director, ARRA has begun t o computerize the

Agency's 1 icensing f i l e s for schedul i ng inspections and enforcement

actions. The Agency's existing computer system i s sufficient to begin

automati on. However, additional hardware and software may be

necessary for ARRA to implement a computer system capable of providing

an adequate data base.

Staff Turnover Has Reduced Inspection Frequency - ARRA's problems in

retaining experienced technical and cl erical staff have a1 so contributed

to the untimeliness of inspections. Staff turnover has been one of the

Agency's major concerns, and reduces the amount of inspectors' time

available and increases training time necessary for new recruits.

Turnover has negatively affected program performance. The X- ray and

radi oacti ve materi a1 s programs have historical ly operated with 1 ess staff

than has been authorized. By calculating worker months* available for

each fiscal year, a total number of available full- time equivalent

positions ( FTEs) can be derived for each of the l a s t 4 fiscal years.

Table 6 compares available FTEs with authorized FTEs.

TABLE 6

AVAILABLE FTES IN THE X- RAY AND RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS PROGRAMS

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1981 THROUGH 1984

X- ray Compliance

FTEs Authorized 4 4 4 5

FTEs Available 3 4 3.4 3.9

Radioacti ve Material s

FTEs Authorized 5.5 5.5 5 5

FTEs Avai 1 abl e 4.7 5 3.1 3.3

Source: Compil ed by Auditor General staff from ARRA personnel i nformation

Besides lessening available manpower for 1 ong periods of time, continuous

turnover diverts time normally spent on inspections to the necessary task

of training new personnel. Furthermore, each new inspector requires a

significant period of time before working a t a level comparable t o veteran

inspectors.

* One FTE working for 1 full month equals 1 worker month. Twelve worker

months equates to the availability of one FTE for 1 year.

2 6

According to the Agency, the increasing national demand for health

physicists has negatively affected i t s ability to retain and recruit

qual ified staff professionals. ARRA's turnover reached i t s peak in fiscal

year 1983, when 44 percent of the Agency's staff resigned. According to

the deputy director, the recruitment effort that followed was much longer

and more difficult than anticipated.

The Agency's turnover problem has recently been reviewed by the Personnel

Division of the Department of Administration. In i t s report, the

Personnel Divi sion reached the fol 1 owi ng conclusions:

" 1 ) Present classifications and class specifications

are inadequately serving these positions, the empl oyees

who work in them and the Arizona Radiation Regulatory

Agency.

2) Compensation levels for the current series examined

in the review appear to be inconsistent when compared

w i t h other job classes i n state agencies."

The Personnel Division addressed the Agency's turnover problem by

recommending a reclassification of Agency technical positions t o provide

for compensation increases and career development for the Agency Is

technical staff.

The evidence avail able indicates that the Agency's i nabil i ty to offer

competitive salaries compared w i t h other entities in the region that

employ health physicists, has hampered i t s efforts to hire and retain

qual ified personnel. The PVNGS project, for example, has been S U C C ~ S S ~ U ~

i n attracting ARRA personnel by offering higher salaries. However, i t i s

not clear whether higher salaries alone will resolve the Agency's turnover

problem.

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Activities - PVNGS exercises have

reduced the amount of time available for inspections i n both the X- ray and

radioactive material s programs ( see Fi ndi ng I 11, page 42). Agency records

indicate that X- ray and radioactive material inspectors devote

approximately 10 percent of their time to PVNGS exercises. However, since

ARRA i s required by statute to: " Assume primary responsibility for and

provi de necessary technical assistance t o hand1 e any i nci dents, accidents

and emergencies involving r a d i a t i o n or sources o f r a d i a t i o n occurring

w i t h i n t h i s state," Agency s t a f f time devoted t o PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s i s

unavoidable. Thi s added responsi b i l i t y makes it even more important f o r

the Agency t o properly schedule inspections so they can be conducted i n a

timely manner.

CONCLUSIONS

The i nspection a c t i v i t i e s o f the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency coul d

be improved. Scheduling practices, s t a f f i n g problems and Pa10 Verde

Nuclear Generating Station a c t i v i t i e s have adversely affected the X- ray

compl i ance and radioactive materi a1 s programs ' abi 1 i ty t o conduct

inspections i n a timely manner.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Agency should improve i t s system o f scheduling inspections f o r

both the X- ray compliance and r a d i o a c t i v e materials programs.

2. The Agency should imp1 ement the Personnel D i v i s i o n ' s recommendations

and continue t o evaluate i t s a b i l i t y t o compensate professional staff

a t competitive rates.

FINDING I1

THE ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY COULD STRENGTHEN AND IMPROVE THE

TIMELINESS OF ITS ENFORCEMENT ACTIOtJS

The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency's ( ARRA) X- ray and radioacti ve

materials enforcement actions have been weak and untimely i n some

instances. ARRA's enforcement authority i s adequate. However, w i t h i n the

X- ray compliance program, we i d e n t i f i e d cases i n which stronger

enforcement actions may have been merited or actions were poorly

documented. I n addition, instances were revealed i n which the radioacti ve

materials program f a i l e d t o adequately document enforcement actions and

required excessive amounts o f time t o complete them. These problems

D r e s u l t a t 1 east p a r t i a l l y from a 1 enient enforcement phi1 osophy,

p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h i n the X- ray program, which has adversely impacted the

Agency's a b i l i t y t o properly pursue enforcement actions. Furthermore, the

X- ray compl iance program's coordination with the State's various medical

b boards could be improved.

ARRA' s Enforcement

l ut h o r i t v I s Adeaua te

The Agency i s adequately empowered t o enforce i t s administrative

regul ations. A. R. S. S30- 688 states:

" To enforce t h i s chapter, the agency shall by r u l e and

regul a t i on, prescribe procedures for imp1 ementi ng an

escalated enforcement action. An escal ated enforcement

action may include actions such as an informal hearing,

impounding o f radiation sources, assessment of c i v i 1

penal t i e s , an order modifying, suspending, or revoking

a license issued under t h i s chapter or recommending

prosecution o f a criminal action. "

I n addition, A. R. S. $ 30- 685 states:

" When the agency finds t h a t any person has engaged i n

or i s about t o engage i n any act or practice which

constitutes or w i l l constitute a v i o l a t i o n of any

provision of t h i s chapter or any rule, regulation or

order issued under t h i s chapter, the attorney general

may, upon request o f the agency, make a p p l i c a t i o n t o the

appropriate court f o r an order enjoining such acts or practices

or f o r an order d i r e c t i n g compliance. Upon a showing by the

agency t h a t such person has engaged or i s about t o engage i n any

such a c t o r practice, a permanent o r temporary i n j u n c t i o n , or

r e s t r a i n i n g order or other order may be granted."

The s t a t u t e authorizing ARRA t o impose c i v i l penal t i e s has been i n effect

since J u l y 31, 1980. Rules and r e g u l a t i o n s s p e c i f y i n g such penal t i e s were

added by ARRA i n June 1983. ARRA r e c e n t l y assessed i t s f i r s t c i v i l

penalty, which was f o r $ 3,000.

The X- ray and r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s programs have developed standard

operating procedures f o r f a c i l i t i e s found not t o be i n compliance w i t h

Agency admini s t r a t i ve regulations. A 1 e t t e r o f noncompl iance i s

transmitted t o the v i o l a t o r g i v i n g 30 days t o c o r r e c t the v i o l a t i o n ( s ) .

If s a t i s f a c t o r y remedial actions are not taken or i f a v i o l a t o r f a i l s t o

respond, a second l e t t e r i s sent g i v i n g 10 days t o c o r r e c t the

v i o l a t i o n ( s ) . If a v i o l a t o r has been repeatedly c i t e d f o r noncompliance

or continuously f a i l s t o respond t o the Agency's correspondence, escalated

enforcement i s pursued.

Adequate enforcement a u t h o r i t y i s c r i t i c a l because research has shown t h a t

exposure t o sources o f i o n i z i n g r a d i a t i o n can be harmful t o humans ( see

Finding I, page 17). A1 though it i s impossible t o p r e d i c t whether a

p a r t i c u l a r low- dose exposure t o an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l cause damage, i t i s

extremely important t o reduce the amount of r a d i a t i o n received by the

p u b l i c t o l e v e l s as low as reasonably achievable. Consequently, the X- ray

and r a d i o a c t i v e material s programs must enforce standards t h a t 1 essen

unnecessary exposures. F a i l u r e t o enforce these standards i n a timely

manner could r e s u l t i n increased occurrences of cancer and genetic damage.

The X- ray Program's Enforcement

a c t i o n s Could Be Stronger And

Documentation Improved

I n c e r t a i n instances, the X- ray program s houl d consider stronger

enforcement practices. A random sample of the r e g i s t r a t i o n f i l e s revealed

1 imited enforcement a c t i v i t y . O f the 250 X- ray f i l e s drawn i n the random

sample, none contained inspections t h a t resul ted i n escalated enforcement

I) actions. Because o f poor documentation o f enforcement actions, it i s

often d i f f i c u l t t o d i s t i n g u i s h between lack o f action and undocumented

action. Two cases are presented t o i l l u s t r a t e instances i n which stronger

enforcement actions may have been merited, and i n which documentation o f

actions was poor.

Case 1

On September 17, 1980, a veterinary c l i n i c ' s X- ray machine was

c i t e d f o r two items of noncompliance. One item o f noncompliance

invol ved i n s u f f i c i e n t f i l t r a t i o n i n the primary X- ray beam. The

second concerned the beam diameter, which was found t o p r o j e c t

beyond the " area o f c l i n i c a l i n t e r e s t . " Both items o f

noncompliance resulted i n a higher dosage o f r a d i a t i o n than

Agency standards allow. A f t e r two enforcement l e t t e r s were sent

by the Agency, the f a c i l i t y ' s owner, on November 26, 1980,

informed the Agency t h a t the machine would not be used u n t i l the

repairs were made. The f a c i l i t y was subsequently contacted by

the Agency on the following dates: February 3, 1981; A p r i l 1,

1981; and May 4, 1981. I n a l l three instances the f a c i l i t y ' s

owner claimed t h a t the machine was not i n use and would not be

used u n t i l it was repaired. The f a c i l i t y ' s f i l e contained no

further reference t o the machine's status.

IOn November 10, 1981, ARRA conducted a routine inspection of a

second veterinary f a c i l i t y w i t h the same owner as the f i r s t . The

machine c i t e d a t the f i r s t f a c i l i t y and repeatedly reported by

the r e g i s t r a n t as being stored was found i n use and was c i t e d for

the same two items of noncompliance as before. The inspection

WpOrt c l e a r l y mentions the fact t h a t t h i s was the same machine

as c i t e d i n the September 17, 1980 inspection. However, a

standard enforcement l e t t e r was sent t o the r e g i s t r a n t with no

mention o f the previous c i t e s of noncompliance or t h e f a l s e

statements made by the r e g i s t r a n t t o the Agency.

Comment: A1 though the r e g i s t r a n t apparently made fa1 se

statements to the Agency concerning the status and use of the

X- ray machine, no enforcement actions were taken by the Agency.

When informed o f the case, the program manager stated t h a t he d i d

not believe a t the time t h a t additional enforcement was c a l l e d

for because the s i t u a t i o n did not m e r i t such action. Because the

Agency took no enforcement action i n t h i s case, the r e g i s t r a n t

was successful i n using false statements t o continue the use of

substandard equipment.

Case 2

On December 1, 1981, a medical f a c i l i t y was c i t e d f o r two items

o f noncompliance. One item concerned r a d i a t i o n output from an

X- ray machine t h a t exceeded Agency standards and had been c i t e d

on the previous inspection. Three days l a t e r , a l e t t e r was sent

to the f a c i l i t y giving the r e g i s t r a n t 30 days t o correct the

items. A one- page inspection sheet dated January 6, 1982,

indicated t h a t the r a d i a t i o n output problem did not e x i s t , but

did not explain why. A notation on t h i s sheet f u r t h e r indicated

t h a t the physician who owned the f a c i l i t y was given the name o f a

r e p a i r service and a possible solution t o the remaining i tems of

noncompliance. There was no other correspondence i n the f i l e

u n t i l May 12, 1982, when the Agency sent a l e t t e r n o t i f y i n g the

f a c i l i t y t h a t it was " now i n compliance w i t h Agency

regulations . . . ," more than 5 months a f t e r it was cited.

Coment: I n t h i s case, 5 months elapsed before ARRA concluded

t h a t the r e g i s t r a n t took necessary remedial action. During t h i s

time, although the Agency has stated t h a t the r e g i s t r a n t ' s

progress was monitored and communication was maintained, nothing

was documented i n the f i l e s . I n t h i s case, poor documentation

make it impossible t o determine what actions were a c t u a l l y taken.

Radioacti ve Material s F- ol1 o- w I- J D

' And Documentation O f Enforcement

Act~ ons Could Be Improved

The r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s program could improve i t s f o l l o w up and

documentation o f enforcement actions. A random sample of 70 program

1 icensing f i l e s revealed cases i n which the reinspection o f 1 icensees

found i n noncompliance was untimely and the documentation o f enforcement

actions was defi c i ent. The Nucl ear Regul atory Commi ssi on ( NRC) a1 so found

the program's documentation of enforcement actions t o be inadequate. I n

addition, the random sample i d e n t i f i e d the untimely t r a n s m i t t a l o f

enforcement 1 etters.

Cases I l l u s t r a t e Untimely Enforcement and Incomplete Documentation - The

random sample i d e n t i f i e d instances i n which enforcement actions, i n the

form of follow- up inspections, were untimely and the documentation o f

these actions was deficient. The following cases i l l u s t r a t e these points.

Case 1

I n September o f 1982, ARRA conducted a routine inspection o f a

medical f a c i l i ty. One i tem o f noncompl iance was cited, i nvol v i ng

a f a i l u r e t o leak t e s t a radium- 226 source.* The licensee had

been c i t e d f o r t h i s v i o l a t i o n i n the two previous inspections, i n

1977 and 1979. The 1 icensee's response t o the enforcement l e t t e r

from the Agency was regarded as unsatisfactory by Agency

personnel and a reinspection was scheduled f o r January o f 1983.

However, i n November o f 1982 the licensee corresponded w i t h the

Agency informing it t h a t he could not get his radium source leak

tested and asked i f Agency personnel knew o f anyone who might

want to buy the source.

The next and l a s t item t h a t appears i n the f i l e i s an X- ray

compliance inspection report dated August 10, 1983, almost 11

months a f t e r the o r i g i n a l v i o l a t i o n was cited. During a routine

X- ray inspection, the inspectors were requested by the f a c i l i ty ' s

staff t o survey the radium source. The inspectors were informed

by the s t a f f t h a t approximately 1 year e a r l i e r a p r i v a t e

consultant had found the source to be leaking and advised the

1 icensee t o dispose o f the source. However, due to a " breakdown

of the system," the consultant never returned t o dispose o f the

source. The X- ray inspectors found the source t o be leaking

excessively. The radi oacti ve materi a1 s program manager was

contacted and, according t o the X- ray report, conducted an

inspection t o determine the extent o f possible contamination.

However, there i s no report i n the f i l e concerning the program

manager's inspection o f the f a c i l i ty.

According t o an Agency o f f i c i a l , the radium source was properly

disposed o f i n a low- 1 eve1 radioactive waste disposal s i t e i n May

o f 1984, 20 months a f t e r the i n i t i a l inspection c i t i n g the

violation. However, when the f i l e was reviewed, there was no

documentation of t h i s fact. The excessive time elapsed because

there was some d i f f i c u l t y i n f i n d i n g an authorized disposal s i t e

and the licensee did not want t o pay the approximately $ 650 to

have the source disposed o f properly.

Comment: The Agency f a i l e d to conduct timely follow- up

inspections o f the f a c i l i ty and adequately document a1 1 re1 evant

occurrences and informati on. Because the Agency's actions were

untimely, the 1 icensee's source 1 eaked excessive amounts o f

r a d i a t i o n for a t l e a s t 1 year. This resulted i n the licensee's

employees and t h e p u b l i c being exposed t o unnecessary l e v e l s o f

radiation. Additional informati on provided by the Agency

suggests t h a t the excessive r a d i a t i o n l e v e l s observed by the

X- ray inspectors were due t o the misplacement o f a lead shield.

This information was not found i n t h e l i c e n s e e ' s - f i l e , and

f u r t h e r indicates a f a i l u r e t o document a l l relevant information.

* Leak tests are conducted t o ensure t h a t a sealed source i s not

re1 easing radioactive material. The f a i l ure t o perform adequate and

timely leak tests can r e s u l t i n contamination of the surrounding-envi

ronment.

Case 2

ARRA conducted an i n i t i a l inspection of an i n d u s t r i a l 1 icensee on

October 21, 1980. Four items of noncompliance were cited,

including f a i l u r e t o perform leak tests and unauthorized place o f

use and storage. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g two enforcement l e t t e r s , the

licensee responded f o r the f i r s t time on January 8, 1981. After

an undocumented meeting w i t h the licensee, the items o f

noncompl iance were c l eared on March 2, 1981 , more than 4 months

a f t e r they were cited.

On September 15, 1982, a routine inspection was conducted. Three

i tems o f noncompl iance were cited, i n c l udi ng unauthorized

i n d i v i d u a l s using radioactive material s and f a i l u r e to perform

leak tests. The Agency transmitted an enforcement l e t t e r on

November 24, 1982, 70 days a f t e r the inspection.

According t o a f i l e memorandum from the program manager dated

February 18, 1983, a telephone conference was held w i t h a

representative o f the licensee on February 11, 1983, 79 days

a f t e r the Agency sent the 30- day enforcement l e t t e r . The

representative was t h e l i c e n s e e ' s new r a d i a t i o n safety o f f i c e r

and was unfamil i a r with the 1 icensee's previous violations.

However, the representative stated he would respond t o ARRA

immediately out1 i n i n g the 1 icensee's steps t o c o r r e c t the i tems

o f noncompl iance.

Comment: On May 15, 1984, the f i l e was reviewed as p a r t o f the

random sample. Since the Agency had taken no actions on the

three items of noncompliance, the f i l e ' s status was brought to

the a t t e n t i o n o f t h e r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s program manager. A

follow- up inspection was conducted on May 24, 1984, 15 months

a f t e r the v i o l a t i o n s had been cited. Six items o f noncompliance

were cited, four o f which had been c i t e d on e i t h e r one or the

other of the two previous inspections.

Case 3

During a 12 month period, from March of 1981 through March o f

1982, a h o s p i t a l 1 icensee experienced di f f i c u l ty with the

disposal of i t s radioactive waste and the loss o f a r a d i o a c t i v e

implant source. Agency reports i n the l i c e n s i n g f i l e i d e n t i f y

problems w i t h the hospital ' s r a d i a t i o n safety program, including

inadequate r a d i a t i o n surveys* and i n s u f f i c i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n s to

a1 1 employees regarding the hand1 ing and disposal o f r a d i o a c t i ve

'* A survey i s an evaluation of the production, use, release, disposal or

presence of sources o f r a d i a t i o n under a s p e c i f i c set of conditions t o

determine actual or poten ti a1 r a d i a t i o n hazards.

material s. One report concl udes: " A1 though the r a d i a t i o n

surveys and swipe tests performed by the inspector indicated t h a t

the r a d i a t i o n l e v e l s were safe a t the time o f inspection, the

1 icensee, a t present, has a substandard r a d i a t i o n safety program. "

ARRA r a d i o a c t i ve materi a1 s inspectors conducted four separate

inspections o f the f a c i l i t y over a 4 month period, w i t h the l a s t

inspection occurring on March 23, 1982. Two items o f

noncompliance were cited, one of which invol ved the f a i l u r e to

properly t r a i n personnel i n r a d i o a c t i ve imp1 ant therapy. The

second item concerned the f a i l u r e o f a committee, required by

1 icensure, t o meet and address the r a d i a t i o n safety a c t i vi t i e s

agreed t o i n the hospital ' s r a d i o a c t i ve material s 1 icense. At

the time o f the f i l e survey, 26 months had elapsed since the

f a c i l i t y was 1 ast inspected.

Comment: Despite the obvious problems a f f e c t i n g the hospital and

t h e r a o r d i n a r y a t t e n t i o n paid by the Agency t o the licensee i n

1982, a follow- up inspection o f the f a c i l i t y had not been

conducted by the time o f the f i l e survey. Many o f the actions

taken by the licensee to improve i t s r a d i a t i o n safety program

merited close observation by ARRA. These observations woul d have

ensured the proper completion o f these actions by the licensee

and i t s r a d i a t i o n safety program.

The NRC Found Inadequate Enforcement Documentation - I n i t s 1984 annual

review, the NRC also noted the program's f a i l u r e t o adequately document

enforcement actions. It commented:

" I n interviewing inspectors and examining the resul t s

of a follow- up inspection i n the f i l e s , it was

determined t h a t the Agency had verbally ordered a

licensee t o take c e r t a i n actions t o be i n compliance.

These actions were never documented and the enforcement

documentation was not issued u n t i l the completion o f a

f o l l ow- up inspection."

The NRC ' s recommendation was that:

". . . any enforcement action taken by the ARRA be

documented f u l l y i n the f i l e a t the time o f the

enforcement action. This issue i s especially important

i n l i g h t o f the new c i v i l penalty a u t h o r i t y recently

granted t o the Agency."

I n a second comment, the NRC states:

" Some inspection reports reviewed did not document

i n v e s t i g a t i o n and close out o f previous items o f

noncompl i ance. "

I t s recommendation was t h a t :

". . . t h e i n s p e c t i o n form be modified t o show i n v e s t i g a t i o n and

close out o f previous items o f noncompliance. We f e e l t h i s i s

necessary f o r maintaining a h i s t o r y o f the 1 icensee's

performance. "

The Agency's Enforcement Actions Could Be More Timely - The program's

enforcement actions are not always timely. I n the random sample, the

average number o f days t h a t elapsed between the date o f inspections w i t h

items o f noncompliance and t h e t r a n s m i t t a l o f enforcement l e t t e r s by the

Agency was greater than Agency standards. O f the f i l e s drawn i n the

sample i n which enforcement l e t t e r s were sent since January 1, 1981, the

average number of elapsed days was 40, while Agency standards c a l l f o r a

maximum o f 30 days. A1 though some enforcement 1 e t t e r s were sent i n as few

as 4 days, t h e t r a n s m i t t a l o f several l e t t e r s exceeded 60 days.

NRC representatives be1 ieve the delay i n t h e t r a n s m i t t a l o f enforcement

l e t t e r s reduces the Agency's a b i l i t y t o properly enforce rules and

regulations and p r o t e c t p u b l i c health and safety.

The NRC, i n i t s most recent review, also noted the untimeliness o f the

Agency's enforcement actions. I n i t s r e p o r t the NRC comments:

" I n the review o f the compliance f i l e , there were

several instances o f delays i n taking enforcement

action. These delays ran up t o f o u r months."

The NRC recommended " t h a t the ARRA e s t a b l i s h a t i c k l e r f i l e t o ensure

prompt enforcement actions i n accordance w i t h the ARRA r o u t i n e procedure."

Enforcement P h i l osophy

Could Be More Aggressive

Two factors have produced weak enforcement actions. The Agency's a b i l i ty

t o conduct enforcement actions has been affected by the problems i n i t s

inspection program. However, when problems are i d e n t i f i e d a 1 enient

enforcement phi1 osophy has affected the actions t h a t are taken.

As o u t l i n e d previously ( see page 17), ARRA has not conducted inspections

i n a t i m e l y manner. Since enforcement a c t i v i t i e s are an i n t e g r a l p a r t of

each inspection program, t h i s f a i l u r e a f f e c t s the programs' enforcement

effectiveness.

However, another f a c t o r producing weak enforcement i s the Agency's

enforcement p h i l osophy. The X- ray compl iance program operates w i t h the

philosophy t h a t it i s imperative t o maintain a good working r e l a t i o n s h i p

w i t h i t s r e g i s t r a n t s . T h i s stems from a b e l i e f t h a t a trend toward more

escalated enforcement a c t i v i t y would be counterproducti ve. An Agency

o f f i c i a l stated t h a t he fears a more s t r i n g e n t enforcement p o l i c y would

a1 ienate r e g i s t r a n t s and resul t i n pol i t i c a l r e t r i b u t i o n by medical and

dental lobbying groups. I n addition, he stated t h a t the program depends

on r e g i s t r a n t s ' cooperation during inspections. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e

i n hospital inspections, where inspectors are dependent upon hospital

s t a f f t o clear rooms and set up procedures t o simulate normal usage o f

equipment. The o f f i c i a l concluded t h a t aggravated r e g i s t r a n t s can

s i g n i f i c a n t l y hamper the inspection process.

A1 though t h i s p h i l osophy might benefi t the X- ray compl iance program's

a b i l i t y t o conduct inspections w i t h 1 i t t l e resistance from r e g i s t r a n t s , it

reduces the Agency's a b i l i t y t o properly carry out i t s s t a t u t o r y mandate

t o p r o t e c t pub1 i c heal t h and safety from excessi ve exposure t o r a d i a t i o n

sources. It should be pointed out, however, t h a t there has been

considerable improvement i n the program's a t t i t u d e toward enforcement i n

recent years. V i o l a t i o n s t h a t would not have r e s u l t e d i n action several

years ago are now a c t i v e l y pursued. Further improvement i s needed however.

As i l l u s t r a t e d by the case examples, the r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s program has

been l a x i n i t s f o l l o w up and documentation o f enforcemen- t actions.

According t o the program manager, i n the past a greater emphasis was

p l aced upon conducting i nspections and 1 ess upon pursuing enforcement

actions. A1 though an e f f o r t i s being made t o c o r r e c t t h i s philosophy, the

programs' turnover and Pal o Verde Nuclear Generating S t a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s

have hampered the process.

Coordination With Medical

Boards Could Be Im~ roved

Agency coordination wi t h t h e S t a t e ' s various medical boards coul d

beimproved. X- ray compliance program inspectors are i n an ideal p o s i t i o n

t o observe instances i n which medical p r a c t i t i o n e r s use techniques t h a t

expose p a t i e n t s t o excessive l e v e l s o f radiation. However, ARRA has no

a u t h o r i t y over these p r a c t i t i o n e r s . A. R. S. $ 30- 671 . A mandates that:

" Radiation protection standards adopted i n r u l e s and

regulations promulgated by the agency under t h i s

chapter s h a l l n o t be construed t o l i m i t the k i n d or

amount o f r a d i a t i o n t h a t may be i n t e n t i o n a l l y applied

t o a person o r animal f o r diagnostic o r therapeutic

purposes by o r under the d i r e c t i o n o f a l i c e n s e d

p r a c t i t i o n e r o f the heal i n g arts. "

I n addition, A. R. S. $ 30- 672. D mandates that:

" Persons licensed i n t h i s state t o p r a c t i c e as a

denti st, c h i r o p o d i s t o r v e t e r i n a r i a n o r 1 icensed i n

t h i s state t o p r a c t i c e medicine, surgery, osteopathy,

c h i r o p r a c t i c o r naturopathy s h a l l n o t be required by

the agency t o obtain any other l i c e n s e f o r the use of

an X- ray machine b u t are governed by t h e i r own

1 icensing acts. "

ARRA personnel r e p o r t t h a t inspectors have noted instances i n which

p r a c t i t i o n e r s expose patients t o r a d i a t i o n 1 eve1 s exceeding establ i shed

norms. The program manager stated t h a t i n these cases the inspector on

the scene informal 1y recommends a course of action. Subsequent

inspections show t h a t while some p r a c t i t i o n e r s heed i nspectors' advice,

others do not. The program manager stated t h a t if a r e g i s t r a n t ignores an

inspector' s advice, he would consider contacting the re1 evant medical

board. However, o f f i c i a l s from the Medical , Osteopathic, Dental and

Chiropractic Boards r e p o r t t h a t t h e y r e c e i v e no correspondence from the

Agency regarding r a d i a t i o n practices. A1 1 have expressed i n t e r e s t i n

being n o t i f i e d o f cases t h a t the X- ray program cannot resolve informally.

A r e g u l a r 1 ine o f communication between the Agency and the State's medical

boards could improve p u b l i c health and safety. The X- ray program should

pursue a p o l i c y i n which interested medical boards are r o u t i n e l y contacted

when t h e i r licensees do not conform t o contemporary standards f o r

r a d i a t i o n exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

The Arizona Radiation Regul atory Agency ' s enforcement actions have not

always been as strong or timely as was warranted. Problems i n the

Agency's inspection program are compounded by the Agency's 1 enient

enforcement phi1 osophy. These factors have adversely affected the X- ray

compl i ance and radioactive materi a1 s programs' abi 1 i ty t o conduct and

adequately document enforcement actions i n a timely manner. F i n a l l y , ARRA

could improve i t s l i n e s o f communication w i t h t h e S t a t e ' s medical boards.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Agency should pursue stronger enforcement actions i n those cases

t h a t m e r i t such action.

2. The Agency should ensure t h a t licensing and enforcement actions are

adequately documented.

3. The Agency should communicate with the various State medical boards

when p r a c t i t i o n e r s repeatedly expose patients t o radiation l e v e l s

exceeding establ i shed norms.

FINDING I11

THE ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY HAS NOT RECEIVED NUCLEAR

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FUNDS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE COSTS OF ITS PAL0

VERDE ACTIVITIES

The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency ( ARRA) has not recei ved adequate

funding from the Nuclear Emergency Management Fund ( NEMF) t o finance the

costs o f i t s Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station i n v o l vement. Because

ARRA1s Nuclear Emergency Management Fund appropriations have paid only

p a r t o f i t s Palo Verde costs, the Agency has financed a s i g n i f i c a n t

p o r t i o n o f these a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i t s General Fund appropriation. The

Arizona D i v i s i o n o f Emergency Services, the NEMF administrator, has had a

negative impact on ARRAts Pal o Verde cost recovery. I n addition, the

Nuclear Emergency Management Fund appropriations are n o t i n l i n e w i t h the

statutes.

The Nuclear Emergency Management Fund was established i n 1981 t o provide

funding f o r administering and enforcing the State plan f o r o f f - s i t e

response t o emergencies caused by accidents a t commerci a1 nuclear

generating stations. ARRA i s e n t i t l e d t o NEMF f i n a n c i a l assistance for

i t s Pal o Verde Nuclear Generating Station ( PVNGS) a c t i v i ti es. A. R. S.

926- 306.01 states t h a t the annual assessment 1 evied against those engaged

i n constructing o r operating a commercial nuclear generating s t a t i o n was

establ ished:

". . . t o provide f o r the development and maintenance

of a state plan f o r o f f - s i t e response t o an emergency

caused by an accident a t a commercial nuclear

generating s t a t i o n and t o provide for the equipment,

personnel , f a c i l i ti es, t r a i n i ng and t e s t i n g necessary

t o comply w i t h c r i t e r i a for preparation and evaluation

of radio1 ogi cal emergency response p l ans and

preparedness i n support of commercial nucl ear

generating stations prescribed by the United States

nucl ear regulatory commission and the federal emergency

management agency. "

ARRA Has S i g n i f i c a n t

mNGS Responsibil i t i e s

ARRA's emergency response and environmental survei 11 ance a c t i v i t i e s are

c r u c i a1 t o the Pal o Verde Nucl ear Generating Station Is* Nucl ear

Regul atory Commi ssion ( NRC) operating 1 icense. Without ARRA's support,

the State would n o t be able t o s a t i s f y the Federal Emergency Management

Agency's ( FEMA) response requirements and, hence, the NRC would not issue

an operating l i c e n s e f o r PVNGS. According t o NRC and FEFIA o f f i c i a l s ,

although ARRA's response c a p a b i l i t y i s not t h e o n l y f a c t o r considered

when a l i c e n s e i s issued, an operating license w i l l not be issued i f ARRA

cannot e f f e c t i v e l y f u l f i l 1 i t s PVNGS responsibil i t i e s . ARRA's a b i l i ty t o

c a r r y out i t s PVNGS functions was evaluated by FEMA during an exercise

held i n May 1983. According t o a FEMA o f f i c i a l , ARRA responded q u i t e

we1 1 during t h i s exercise and woul d be able t o p r o t e c t the pub1 i c heal th,

safety, and welfare i n the case o f an o f f - s i t e release from PVNGS. ARRA

i s responsible f o r providing r a d i o l ogical technical assistance d u r i n g a

PVNGS emergency. The Agency's responsibil t i e s , aimed a t minimizing the

adverse health e f f e c t s from an accident a t PVNGS, were established i n

l i g h t o f the NRC's " C r i t e r i a for Preparation and Evaluation o f

Radi 01 o g i c a l Emergency Response Pl ans and Preparedness i n Support o f

Nuclear Power Pl ants. " ( NUREG 0654) ARRA' s PVNGS functions i n c l ude the

i n i t i a l and ongoing eval uation o f the p o t e n t i a l r a d i o l ogical consequences

from a release o f r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s outside PVNGS and the p r o t e c t i v e

action recommendations t o minimize r a d i a t i o n dose. ARRA also recommends

actions t o control r a d i a t i o n i n food chains and water supplies.

ARRA s t a f f has expended a considerable amount o f time t o f u l f i l l i t s

PVNGS obligations. I n f i s c a l years 1983 and 1984, the s t a f f s o f two ARRA

programs spent a t l e a s t 70 percent** of t h e i r time on PVNGS ( see Table

7). I n f i s c a l year 1983 the r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s and X- ray programs

* PVNGS i s being constructed 55 miles west o f Phoenix by a consortium

o f p u b l i c u t i l i t y corporations and i s scheduled t o go on- line i n

1985. The managing agent f o r PVNGS i s Arizona Public Service Company.

** Time devoted t o PVNGS was determined by reviewing Agency time

sheets. According t o ARRA o f f i c i a l s , s t a f f have not always

c o n s i s t e n t l y recorded the time spent on PVNGS. For t h i s reason,

PVNGS percentages are considered by ARRA t o be conservative estimates.

s t a f f s devoted approximately 13 percent o f t h e i r e f f o r t s towards PVNGS,

while 17 percent of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and support personnel time was

spent on PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s . For f i s c a l year 1984 PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s f o r

these programs and the support s t a f f have decreased. However, as s t a f f

prepare f o r the September 1984 FEMA Exercise Eva1 uation, Agency o f f i c i a l s

expect t h a t PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s w i l l increase. O f f i c i a l s estimate t h a t

during years when FEMA evaluations are held, approximately every 2 years,

10 percent o f the r a d i o a c t i v e materials, X- ray, and support s t a f f time

w i l l be devoted t o PVNGS. This time cannot then be devoted t o these ARRA

programs. *

TABLE 7

TIME SPENT ON PVNGS

ARRA Program FY 1983 FY 1984

Emergency Response

Environmental Survei 11 ance

Radioacti ve Material s

X- ray

Admini s t r a t i ve/ Support

Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from ARRA time sheets

( 1 ) Less than 1 percent

ARRA Has Paid For A Considerable

Portion O f I t s PVNGS A c t i v i t i e s

ki t h General Funds

A1 though e n t i t l e d t o NEMFs, the Agency has used General Funds t o pay f o r

many o f i t s PVNGS costs. NEMF appropriations have not been adequate t o

cover a l l PVNGS expenses. This has occurred p a r t l y because ARRA has

n e i t h e r tracked a l l o f i t s actual PVNGS costs nor summarized the time

spent on PVNGS.

* Di version of resources from r a d i a t i o n p r o t e c t i o n programs i s common

t o states w i t h nuclear generating stations. I n a r e p o r t prepared by

the National Governo. rls Association it i s noted t h a t the necessity

f o r state and l o c a l governments to p a r t i c i p a t e i n emergency

preparedness exercises i s consuming vast amounts o f s t a f f time, t o

the detriment o f other aspects o f states r a d i a t i o n protection

programs t h a t provide substantial protection t o the public.

NEMF Appropriations I n s u f f i c i e n t - Because NEMF r e c e i p t s have not been

adequate, the Agency used General Funds t o cover PVNGS costs i n f i s c a l

years 1983 and 1984. Projections f o r f i s c a l year 1985 also i n d i c a t e t h a t

ARRA's 1985 NEMF appropriation w i l l not pay f o r a l l i t s PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s .

NEMF appropriations have n o t been s u f f i c i e n t t o cover 100 percent o f

PVNGS costs f o r f i s c a l years 1983 or 1984.* I n f i s c a l year 1983 ARRA

received $ 337,270 from the NEMF; however, ARRA expended approximately

$ 94,700 more than i t s appropriation, as shown i n Table 8. For f i s c a l

year 1984 it i s estimated t h a t ARRA w i l l expend $ 70,100 for PVNGS from

i t s General Fund appropriation. The State has paid f o r a t l e a s t $ 164,800

o f the PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s i n f i s c a l years 1983 and 1984. The t o t a l o f

General Funds used for PVNGS i s l i k e l y even greater than t h i s amount

since the personnel t o t a l s are considered by ARRA t o be conservative and

t h e a n a l y s i s performed does not include f i s c a l years 1981 and 1982.

3 The Agency has received NEMFs since 1981 ; however, the approximate

cost o f i t s PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s p r i o r t o f i s c a l year 1983 cannot be

determined because ARRA d i d not record PVNGS personnel time. Based

on Agency estimates o f time expended on Palo Verde it has been ( I

determined, though, t h a t NEMF assistance d i d not exceed costs

incurred.

TABLE 8

NEMF ASSISTANCE AND PVNGS EXPENDITURES

FY 1983 NEMF FY 1983 FY 1984 NEMF FY 1984

PVNGS Cost Assistance Difference PVNGS Cost Assistance Difference

Personal Services and

Empl oyee- Re1 ated Expend. $ 1 97,700 $ 5,000 $( 192,700) $ 1 50,500 $ 59,800 $( 90,700)

Trai n i ng/ Travel

In- State 2,300 ( 2,300) 4,100 11,200 7,100

Out- Of- State 10,900 19,000 8,100 8,300 20,100 11,800

Other Operating

Expenditures 71,000 41 ,900 ( 29,100) 53,300 48,900 ( 4,400)

Equipment 1 71 ,000 271 ,400 100,400 69,900 93,000 23,100

Total s $ 452.900 $ 337.300 $( 115.600) $ 286.100 $ 233.000 $( 53.100)

Carry- Forward From

Prior Fiscal Year $ 26,900 $ 11,500

Carry- Forward To

Next Fiscal Year ( 11,500) ( 40,000)

NRC Environmental

Surveil 1 ance Contract

Total PVNGS Expenditures

Paid Nith General Funds

Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from NEMF funding requests for f i s c a l years 1983

and 1984, ARRA time sheets, ARRA internal accounts payable ledgers and other

mi scel 1 aneous expenditure documentation

Personal services* and empl oyee- re1 ated expenditures** c o n s t i t u t e the

major p o r t i o n o f the n e t d e f i c i t . I n f i s c a l year 1983 ARRA employees

spent 31 percent o f t h e i r time on PVNGS. ARRA expended $ 192,700 more f o r

salaries and empl oyee- re1 ated expenditures than it received from the

NEMF. For f i s c a l year 1984 ARRA's projected personnel costs f o r i t s

PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s are $ 90,700 greater than NEMF r e c e i p t s f o r personnel .

I n addition, ARRA has not recovered a l l i t s PVNGS- related other operating

expenditures from the NEMF.

NEMF appropriations f o r equipment*** expenditures have o f f s e t some o f

ARRA's PVNGS personnel costs and other operating expenditures. The

p a r t i a l compensation i s due t o the f a c t t h a t equipment purchased w i t h

NEMFs i s not used only f o r PVNGS. ARRA has purchased s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t

1 aboratory and emergency response equipment wi t h i t s NEMF

appropriations. Much o f i t can be used f o r r a d i a t i o n protection programs

other than PVNGS. S i m i l a r l y , two vehicles purchased w i t h NEMFs are

available f o r projects and emergencies not r e l a t e d t o PVNGS. I n f i s c a l

year 1983 ARRA received approximately $ 100,400 more than the equipment

expenditures a t t r i b u t a b l e t o PVNGS. For f i s c a l year 1984 the NEMF

appropriation was $ 23,100 greater than the actual PVNGS equipment costs.

ARRA may not recover a1 1 i t s f i s c a l year 1985 PVNGS costs from the NEMF.

ARRA's 1985 NEMF appropriation i s $ 1 02,800. Additionally, ARRA has

declared a $ 20,000**** carry- forward from i t s 1984 NEMF appropriation and

projected t h a t $ 20,000 more w i l l be brought forward i n t o f i s c a l year 1985.

3r These expenditures were determined by applying each employee ' s

hourly wage against the time recorded f o r PVNGS.

** 20 percent of the PVNGS personal services expenditures was used t o

determine PVNGS- re1 ated empl oyee re1 ated expenses. The Agency

average i s 22 percent.

*** Equipment costs were obtained by determining the projected use for

PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s over the equipments' expected l i f e and applying

t h i s f i g u r e a g a i n s t the purchase p r i c e of , an item. This method

incorporates the consideration t h a t equipment purchased w i t h NEMFs

i s a1 so used f o r other purposes.

**** The carry- forward does not represent a r e a l savings i n personnel

costs f o r PVNGS. The carry- forward r e s u l t e d from vacancy savings

f o r two PVNGS dedicated positions funded w i t h NEMFs.

Thus, ARRA w i l l have $ 142,800 available f o r 1985 PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s .

$ 60,000 o f the a l l o c a t i o n i s f o r personnel costs. Calculations based on

Agency estimates f o r f i s c a l year 1985 i n d i c a t e t h a t ARRA w i l l expend

approximately $ 250,000 on s a l a r i e s and empl oyee- re1 ated expenditures for

PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s . Moreover, ARRA o f f i c i a l s acknowledge t h a t the

appropriation w i l l not be s u f f i c i e n t t o cover PVNGS- re1 ated costs for

expendables, equipment cal i b r a t i o n and mobile f a c i l i ty maintenance. The

undeclared carry- forward w i l l be used t o cover f i s c a l year 1985

PVNGS- re1 ated t r a i n i n g and t r a v e l costs, a1 ong wi t h mi nor equi pment

repair. These items were c u t from ARRA's i n i t i a l NEMF request, b u t are

necessary t o maintain ARRA' s PVNGS response capabi 1 i ty.

PVNGS Expenditures Not Known - ARRA has not tracked actual PVNGS

expenditures. Because ARRA has not summarized i t s actual PVNGS costs or

D time spent on PVNGS, it has underestimated i t s NEMF requests. Maricopa

County and the Texas Department o f Health provide methods f o r cost

tracking. By recording a c t u a l PVNGS costs, ARRA would have b e t t e r

j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i t s NEMF requests.

D

A1 though, ARRA monitors i t s NEMF expenditures, it has not recorded actual

PVNGS costs. Presently, ARRA's NEMF requests are based on the operating

expenditures and equipment needs o f the emergency response and

B environmental s u r v e i l 1 ance programs, a1 ong w i t h minimal funding for

personnel. However, i n some cases NEMFs are used t o pay equipment and

t r a v e l expenditures t h a t re1 ate p a r t i a l l y or completely t o other programs

( see equipment and t r a v e l expenditures on Table 8, page 45). By

contrast, personal services and employee- related expenditures for ARRA's

PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s are much greater than the personnel costs paid w i t h

NEMFs. According t o ARRA o f f i c i a l s , ARRA has never recorded actual PVNGS

costs. ARRA has recorded time spent on PVNGS, however, t h i s information

has n o t been summarized. Because ARRA has not recorded i t s actual PVNGS

costs or compiled PVNGS time, ARRA has operated without f u l l knowledge of

the f i n a n c i a l impact and the diversion o f resources t h a t PVNGS has had on

the Agency. Consequently, ARRA has not requested s u f f i c i e n t funds from

the NEMF t o pay f o r PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s .

ARRA i n i t i a l l y requested $ 209,100 f o r PVNGS- re1 ated personnel and

operational needs. However, c a l c u l ations based on ARRA estimates for

f i s c a l year 1985 PVNGS personnel support indicate t h a t ARRA w i l l incur

$ 250,000 f o r t h i s item alone. If ARRA had calculated t h e t o t a l PVNGS

personnel costs from i t s time records, the Agency would have known i t s

request would not be s u f f i c i e n t to cover i t s costs.

ARRA could u t i l i z e methods developed by Maricopa County C i v i l Defense and

Emergency Services ( MCCDES) and other states t o track costs a t t r i butabl e

t o nuclear generating s t a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . MCCDES uses a monthly time

report t o summarize personnel time f o r PVNGS. Applying salary figures t o

the time spent allows Maricopa County t o determine actual personnel costs

f o r PVNGS. A l l other expenditures d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o PVNGS are

coded as such. By using t h i s method, Maricopa County has complete,

up- to- date information f o r a l l PVNGS expenditures.

The Texas Department o f Health uses a time a l l o c a t i o n method f o r tracking

actual personnel expendi tures associated with nuclear generating s t a t i o n

a c t i v i t i e s . According t o Department o f Heal t h o f f i c i a l s, empl oyees

charge t h e i r time and travel t o specific a c t i v i t y codes. Other operating

expenditures are a1 1 ocated accordingly and equipment costs are prorated

based on usage. U t i l i z i n g t h i s method, Texas' Department o f Health i s

able t o summarize the costs associated w i t h i t s nuclear generating

s t a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s .

ARRA's NEblF requests should be developed by projecting t o t a l costs f o r

the upcoming year. If ARRA tracked and summarized i t s actual PVNGS

expenditures, it woul d have stronger documentation f o r i t s NEMF

requests. Expenditures should be f u l l y j u s t i f i a b l e i n terms o f r e l a t i n g

t o Palo Verde and protecting the pub1 i c heal t h y safety and we1 fare. A1 1

personnel expenditures f o r PVNGS shoul d be projected and the appropriate ( I

number o f f u l l - time equivalent positions shoul d be requested from the

NEMF to cover actual costs. Equipment costs f o r PVNGS should be prorated

based on projected PVNGS use t o ensure t h a t the u t i l i t y consortium pays

only the actual cost a t t r i b u t a b l e t o PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s . Other operating

expenditures should include not only the emergency response and

environmental surveillance programs' costs but also a portion o f the

4 8

r e s t o f ARRA's other operating expenditures. Projections f o r other

operating expenditures can be based on a percentage o f personnel time for

PVNGS. By u t i l i z i n g actual cost figures and projecting the next year's

needs, ARRA's NEMF requests woul d be developed to finance 100 percent of

ARRA's PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s .

Arizona Division O f Emergency Services

Has Not Requested S u f f i c i e n t NEMI- s For ARRA

ARRA has a l s o n o t recovered a l l PVNGS costs p a r t i a l l y because the Arizona

Di vision o f Emergency Services ( ADES) has not requested s u f f i c i e n t funds

from the Legislature. ADES has not f u l f i l l e d i t s NEMF statutory

obl igation t o consider a1 1 governmental costs o f developing, maintaining

and supporting the State pl an. NEMF appropri a t i ons shoul d be determi ned

a t the 1 e g i s l a t i v e level.

D

ADES i s the lead agency and has the overall primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r

development o f a State plan f o r o f f - s i t e response t o an emergency caused

by an accident a t a commercial nuclear generating station. ADES i s

D required t o develop the plan i n consultation w i t h the following State

agencies :

Radiati on Regul atory Agency

Commission of Agricul ture and Horticul ture

State Dairy Commissioner

Department o f Heal t h Services

Department o f Pub1 i c Safety

Department o f Transportation

Office o f Economic P l anning and Development

Division o f M i l i t a r y Affairs w i t h i n the Department of Emergency

and M i l i t a r y A f f a i r s

Arizona Corporation Commission

Any other agencies or o f f i c e s deemed necessary by the D i v i s i o n

of Emergency Services

ADES i s required by A. R. S. $ 306.01. B. t o make an annual recommendation t o

t h e L e g i s l a t u r e of ". . . an amount necessary t o develop, maintain and

support t h e s t a t e [ nuclear emergency response] plan. " It i s the opinion

of the L e g i s l a t i v e Council t h a t t h i s r e q u i r e s t h e d i r e c t o r o f ADES t o

include a reasonable estimate o f a l l costs a t t r i b u t a b l e t o other State

and l o c a l agencies, together w i t h ADES' own costs, i n the annual overall

amount recommended.

ADES V i o l a t e d S t a t u t o r y Requirements - ADES has not complied w i t h

statutory requirements f o r the assessment on commerci a1 nucl ear

generating stations. ADES has not recommended an amount s u f f i c i e n t t o

cover the costs o f ARRA's PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s or the costs t o Maricopa

County and other State agencies.

Despite statutory requirements, ADES' recommendations t o t h e L e g i s l a t u r e

have not included a reasonable estimate o f ARRA's PVNGS costs t o support

the State plan. I n f i s c a l year 1983, ARRA expended $ 1 92,700 more than it

received from the NEMF f o r PVNGS personnel costs. For example, i n t h a t

year ARRA's request f o r administrative services support was decreased by

$ 5,000. ADES also deleted funds for s t a f f and monitor t r a i n i n g , items

t h a t had t o be financed w i t h General Funds. For f i s c a l year 1984 it i s

projected t h a t ARRA w i l l use General Funds t o cover a t l e a s t $ 90,700 i n

personnel expenditures. ADES decreased ARRA's NEMF request f o r personal

services assistance by $ 13,100. I n addition, according t o ARRA o f f i c i a l s

a former d i r e c t o r o f ADES imposed requirements f o r several years t h a t no

personnel costs were t o be funded.

I n addition t o not requesting s u f f i c i e n t funds f o r ARRA's PVNGS costs,

ADES has not included reasonable estimates o f a l l the costs o f a l l the

agencies invol ved i n t h e S t a t e ' s emergency response plan. MCCDES has

worked on PVNGS emergency response pl ans since 1975, however, NEMF

assistance was not provided u n t i l 1983. According t o an ADES o f f i c i a l , a

former d i r e c t o r o f ADES refused t o recognize t h a t Maricopa County was an

el i g i b l e NEMF participant. MCCDES o f f i c i a l s estimate t h a t MCCDES

expended $ 300,000 on PVNGS pl anni ng e f f o r t s before recei ving NEMF

assistance.

Presently, Maricopa County i s included i n the NEMF requests, however, the

funds received have not been adequate t o pay a l l o f Maricopa County's

PVNGS costs. For f i s c a l year 1983, Maricopa County received $ 86,600 i n

NEMF assistance. MCCDES o f f i c i a l s stated t h a t an additional $ 14,800 was

expended i n f i s c a l year 1983 i n support o f PVNGS emergency response

a c t i v i t i e s . For f i s c a l year 1984 Maricopa County received $ 32,000 i n

NEMF assistance, however, MCCDES o f f i c i a l s estimate t h a t an additional

$ 57,600 was spent for PVNGS as o f May 1984.

F i n a l l y , ADES has also not included i n i t s recommendations the costs t o

many State agencies f o r the Radi 01 ogical Emergency Assistance Team

monitors. The monitors a s s i s t ARRA i n performing PVNGS o f f - s i t e

environmental surveillance duties. There are 26 monitors from several

State agencies including the Department o f Health Services, the

D Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e Commission, the Office o f the State Chemist,

the State Land Department, the State Agriculture Laboratory, and the

Corporation Commission. According t o an ARRA o f f i c i a l , monitors spend up

t o 1 week each year on PVNGS.

D

ADES' 1985 NEMF Recommendation Was Influenced by APS' Budget - ADES

improperly considered APS' NEMF budget f o r the f i s c a l year 1985

recommended assessment. ARRA w i l l have t o use General Funds t o cover

f i s c a l year 1985 PVNGS costs, p a r t i a l l y because ADES l i m i t e d the

assessment recommendati on based on APS ' budgetary constraints.

ADES' 1985 NEMF recommendation t o t h e L e g i s l a t u r e was improperly based on

APS' NEMF budget projections. APS' emergency planning organization had a

budget o f $ 300,000 for the annual assessment and t o l d ADES t h a t emergency

planning o f f i c i a l s would have t o meet w i t h top l e v e l consortium

management i f the recommendation was greater than $ 300,000. Not wishing

t o create a problem f o r APS' emergency planning organization, ADES kept

the t o t a l assessment recommendation below $ 300,000.

ARRA o f f i c i a l s do n o t f e e l t h a t the 1985 NEMF appropriation w i l l be

s u f f i c i e n t t o cover a l l o f the Agency's PVNGS costs. ARRA's i n i t i a l 1985

NEMF request, which probably was not s u f f i c i e n t t o cover a l l PVNGS costs,

included $ 209,100 for personnel and operational needs and $ 41,000 for

future equi pmen t repl acement. The future equipment repl acemen t monies

were deleted, according to an ADES o f f i c i a l , because the PVNGS consortium

has not agreed to a mechanism for this process. An APS o f f i c i a l s a i d

that APS would prefer to deal with equipment replacement on a

piece- by- piece basis as the equipment breaks down. ARRA would rather

establish a fund for equipment replacement so the funds are available

when they are needed.

In addition to not being able to establish an account for equipment

replacement, ARRA officials were forced to cut other necessary funds from

the NEMF request. ARRA o f f i c i a l s were told of the $ 300,000 limit on

funds available for the NEMF and were asked to decrease the NEMF request

to a minimum 1 evel. T h i s $ 122,800 budget developed by ARRA will r e s u l t

in a funding deficiency for some PVNGS operational requirements,

according to ARRA officials. The budget, which includes only $ 60,000 for

personnel costs, will not be adequate to cover the $ 250,000 projected for

personnel expendi tures.

Maricopa County officials also feel that the 1985 NEMF allocation will be

inadequate to cover County PVNGS costs. Maricopa County i n i t i a l l y

requested $ 184,000 from the NEMF, however, ADES decreased its

recommendation to $ 83,800. According to the director of MCCDES, some

PVNGS training and exercise personnel costs will have to be absorbed by

the County. Similarly, supplies needed for PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s will have to

be purchased w i t h County funds. The $ 300,000 funding 1 imit contributed

to a funding shortfall, which will have to be made up by public funds.

ADES violated A. R. S. S26- 306.01. B. by 1 imi ting the recommended assessment

to an amount budgeted by APS. In a memorandum dated May 25, 1984 ( see

Appendix, page A- 1 ), the Legislative Council stated: 4

" Ctlhere is no ' allowance for considering the expenses

to or financial condition or any other interest of the

power pl ant consorti um i n either recommending or

setting the amount of the appropriation and

assessment. These commerci a1 considerations are

irrelevant t o the purpose of the appropriation and

assessment. The government does not dicker with the

taxpayer over the amount of taxes i t levies. A

taxpayer cannot hamper the taxing power of sovereignty

by inserting i t s e l f in the taxing process, except as

allowed by law, and the government may n o t bargain i t s

taxing power. Constitution of Arizona Art. IX, sec 1.

Thus insofar as the ADES recommendation of an amount of

appropriation and assessment reflects an amount

bargained and agreed to by and for the expediency of

the consortium rather than the amount of the

governmental costs of developing, maintaining and

supporting the state plan . . . the ADES negotiations

violate legislative expectations, the statutes, and the

state constitution."

Legislature Needs Complete Information - The Legislature does not have

adequate information to determine the amount that ARRA and other agencies

should receive from the the NEMF. By receiving complete information

regarding the State ' s nucl ear emergency response needs, the Legi sl ature

will be able to determine the appropriate NEMF level.

The Legislature needs complete information for the State's nucl ear

emergency response efforts. ADES, as advisor to the Legisl ature, shoul d

ensure that the amount recommended i s sufficient to cover the States

nucl ear emergency response efforts. Accordi ng to the Legi sl ati ve

Council, "[ tlhe legislature is only required to ' hear' ADES'

recommendation and may legally accept, reject, ignore, or modify the

recommendation. "

The decision t o use General Funds to support PVNGS activities should be

made a t the 1 egi sl ati ve 1 eve1 i n accordance with statutory provisions

governing the NEMF. If the Legislature receives recommendations

sufficient to cover the total costs of the State's nuclear emergency

response capabilities, i t can then determine the NEMF appropriation and

corresponding assessment. For t h i s reason, agencies receiving NEMFs

need to track all actual PVNGS costs and be prepared to present this

information to the Legislature. This historical data will enable the

Legislature to make an informed decision regarding the assessment and the

NEMF appropriation.

NEMF Appropriations Not

I n Line With Statutes

The Legislature has seen the need t o a l l o c a t e NEMFs d i r e c t l y t o ARRA due

t o past problems between ADES and ARRA. The statutes provide f o r ADES'

use of the NEMF t o administer and enforce the nuclear emergency response

plan, however, since 1982 the Legislature has decided t o a1 1 ocate NEMFs

d i r e c t l y t o p a r t i c i p a n t s .

The NEMF s t a t u t e , A. R. S. $ 26- 306.02, provides f o r ADES' use o f the Fund.

According t o the statute, ADES has a c o n t i n u i n g a p p r o p r i a t i o n t o use the

fund f o r " administering and enforcing t h e s t a t e p l a n f o r o f f - s i t e

response t o an emergency caused by an accident a t a commercial nuclear

generating station. "

I n recent years t h e L e g i s l a t u r e has allocated NEMFs d i r e c t l y t o

participants. Since 1982 the 1 egi s l ature has overridden the general

s t a t u t e by enacting session laws. This p r a c t i c e was s t a r t e d when

problems developed between ADES and ARRA. From f i s c a l year 1981 through

p a r t of 1983, ARRA's NEMF- related claims were handled by ADES. I n some

cases, there were disagreements between ADES and ARRA over the payment of

claims. I n a d d i t i o n , a former d i r e c t o r o f ADES allegedly used some NEMFs

f o r purposes n o t r e l a t e d t o PVNGS.* By a l l o c a t i n g NEMFs d i r e c t l y t o

ARRAY the Legislature ensured t h a t ARRA would get a l l o f i t s NEMFs. If

the Legislature intends t o continue the p r a c t i c e o f a l l o c a t i n g NEMFs

d i r e c t l y t o p a r t i c i p a n t s , the Legislature may wish t o consider r e v i s i n g

the NEMF statute.

* The NEMF was not t e s t e d d u r i n g t h e 1983 performance a u d i t of the

Department of Emergency and M i l i t a r y Affairs, D i v i s i o n o f Emergency

Services. However, inappropriate expenditures and improper transfers

were found i n the State and Federal funds t h a t were tested.

CONCLUSION

ARRA has not received NEMFs adequate to cover the costs of its PVNGS

activities. ARRA has used General Funds to finance a significant portion

of its PVNGS a c t i v i t i e s . ARRA has not recovered a l l PVNGS costs because

i t has not tracked its actual PVNGS costs and ADES has not requested

sufficient funds from the Legislature. Additional ly, NEMF appropriations

have not been made i n line w i t h the NEMF statutes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ARRA should account for and summarize its actual PVNGS expenditures.

This information should be used i n developing and justifying ARRA's

NEMF requests.

2. ADES should comply w i t h the provisions of A. R. S. $ 26- 306.01. The

assessment recommendation shoul d be a reasonabl e estimate of an

amount adequate to cover a l l costs of a l l agencies involved i n

nucl ear emergency response activities. The Legislature shoul d

consider requiring ADES to submit the agencies i n i t i a l requests along

with the recommended budget.

3. The Legislature may wish to consider amending A. R. S. $ 26- 306.02.8 to

provide for NEMF a1 location directly to participating agencies,

bringing the statute i n 1 ine w i t h the present appropriation process.

FINDING I V

ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY'S X- RAY PROGRAM COULD BE IMPROVED

Arizona Radiation Regul atory Agency's ( ARRA) X- ray r e g i s t r a t i o n needs t o

be reformed and strengthened. The X- ray program would operate more

producti vely i f r e g i s t r a t i o n were enforced and coordinated with fee

collection. The r e g i s t r a t i o n process would be f u r t h e r improved i f the

Agency's authority over i n s t a l l e r s o f r a d i a t i o n equipment were c l a r i f i e d .

Agency Management O f

Registration I s Inadequate

ARRA's r e g i s t r a t i o n process i s not operating adequately. The Agency's

rules and regulations require t h a t a1 1 radiation equipment be registered.

Machine locations are often unknown because the Agency does not enforce

t h i s requirement. As a r e s u l t of t h i s f a i l u r e , the fee c o l l e c t i o n process

i s unnecessarily i n e f f i c i e n t . The X- ray program would be more productive

i f r e g i s t r a t i o n were enforced and coordinated wth fee collection.

The Agency has the statutory authority t o r e g i s t e r radiation machines.

A. R. S. S30- 672. B states:

" The agency may require r e g i s t r a t i o n . . . o f . .

sources o f radiation i f it has been determine;

necessary t o protect pub1 i c health and safety."

The Agency has incorporated t h i s provision i n i t s rules and regulations,

which require that:

" The owner or person having possession of any radiation

machine shall apply for r e g i s t r a t i o n of such machine

with the [ Radiation Regulatory Agency] w i t h i n t h i r t y

( 30) days a f t e r acquisition o f such machines. "

Registration provides necessary information t o the X- ray program. It

compiles data on the number, type and l o c a t i o n of r a d i a t i o n machines, from

which inspection p r i o r i t i e s are determined. The frequency i n which

f a c i l i t i e s are inspected, for example, varies according t o the number and

type of machines used. Further, i n order f o r machines t o be inspected a t

a1 1, the Agency must know their 1 ocations. Consequently, registration i s

essential for an effective inspection program.

A1 though a registration period i s not stipulated i n the Agency's rules and

regul ations, i t has become accepted X- ray program practi ce to register

machines for 4 years. Machines can be registered any time during the year

and expiration dates are usually assigned to be exactly 4 years after the

registration date.* Therefore, expirations occur randomly throughout the

year.

The introduction of fee collection i n fiscal year 1983 increased the

importance of registration data. The fee a facility i s charged i s based

upon the number of machines owned. This information i s obtained from the

registration files. A1 though fee collection and registration are closely

related, Agency management has not recognized the need for greater

coordination between the two functions. Fees are due from a1 1 X- ray

registrants i n January every year. They provide the State with revenues

of approximately $ 89,000** a year. The annual fee for radiation machines

i s currently $ 20 per machine.

Machine Locations Are Often Unknown - The current registration process i s

not operating effectively. Under the present system, the number and k i n d

of machines a facility i s operating i s often unknown until the time of i t s

next inspection. This i s the result of registrants not being held

responsible for properly registering their machines.

Under the current system, w i t h its 4 year registration period, machine

registrations often expire and are n o t renewed by the owners. The Agency

does not monitor expiration dates, which occur randomly throughout the

* There i s one common exception t o this 4 year rule. Recently, the

Agency has tried to have the registration of all the machines operated

by a given facility expire on the same date. Consequently, f a c i l i t i e s

with more than one machine could have the expiration date of a newly

purchased machine assigned to correspond w i t h the date of i t s other

machines.

** The Agency collects approximately $ 140,000 annually from all fee

collections. The remainder is from radioactive materials licensing

fees.

5 8

year, and does not usually send renewal notices t o registrants. As a

r e s u l t , X- ray machines often remain unregistered u n t i l renewed by an

inspector a t the time o f a f a c i l i t y ' s next inspection.

S i m i l a r l y , the movement or d i s p o s i t i o n o f X- ray machines and new

acquisitions o f machines are usually not reported t o the Agency by

registrants. One f a c i l i t y t r i p l e d the number o f machines it had but d i d

not n o t i f y the Agency and r e g i s t e r the new machines. Consequently, the

Agency was unaware o f the new acquisitions u n t i l the f a c i l i t y ' s next

schedul ed inspection.

The reason f o r t h i s problem i s t h a t X- ray machine owners are not held

responsible f o r the r e g i s t r a t i o n and renewal o f t h e i r machines.

Nonregistration and other r e l a t e d v i o l a t i o n s are not considered noteworthy

by the Agency, even though A. R. S. $ 30- 673 makes it unlawful t o operate an

unregistered machine. When inspections reveal unregistered machines or

unreported machine movement, inspectors do not record the v i o l a t i o n s i n

t h e i r reports. On the contrary, instead o f considering nonregistration a

v i o l ation, inspectors have been assuming the responsi b i l i t y o f regi s t e r i n g

machines f o r the owners. For example, a review o f 250 f a c i l i t i e s ' f i l e s

showed t h a t 133 of them had a t l e a s t one instance i n which an X- ray

machine was not registered u n t i l a f t e r an inspection. This means t h a t

f a c i l i t i e s can repeatedly operate unregistered X- ray machines for 1 ong

periods o f time without fear o f any enforcement action. Stronger

enforcement o f e x i s t i n g requirements i s needed t o a1 1 eviate t h i s probl em.

Fee Coll ection I s Unnecessarily I n e f f i c i e n t - Inadequate r e g i s t r a t i o n and

a lack o f coordination has reduced t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f fee collection. Fee

re1 ated f o l l ow- up work i s d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o inaccurate<