ML19274G169
| ML19274G169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/02/1979 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Campbell G LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908300321 | |
| Download: ML19274G169 (2) | |
Text
NOTE T0:
Document Control Room 016 FROM:
ll, li _6 lei 6 f.'Oij:
C m' {r k c x. ) H icd pn C. blc,. S p y,;h s
Please place'the attached document in the PDR using the following file and file points:
PDR File Related Documents (SelectOne)
(Enterifappropriate)
Proposed Rule (PR)
ACRS Minutes No.
Reg. Guide Proposed Rule (PR)
Draft Reg. Guide Draft Reg. Guide Petition (PRM)
Reg. Guide Effective Rule (RM)
Petition (PRM)
Effective Rule (RM)
Federal Register Notice SD Task No.
NUREG Report Contract No.
Subject:
Y. H' '
3 ~,.,
J, A
f J
I l i,,,, we s-
-/,
!* F-th ev,
2032
'/,7
~
'\\
e 7908300 3 2,/
I i-ll{
AUG 2 1979 s
George !). Campbell Chairman Personnel Dosimetry Overview Cornittee Lawrence Livermore Laboratory P.O. Cox 5505 Livemore, California 94550
Dear Iir. Caapbell:
R. E. Alexander of my staff advises m that, when our public meeting on personnel dosimetry perfomance testing was held, you recom. ended the fomation of an industry overview cc:11ttee to help ensure that our program vould be both fair and effective.
He also advises that this comittee has now been famed and is functioning.
As Mr. Alexander has told your comittee, we welcome this effort.
In particular, the Persnnnel Cosinatry Overview Committee provides for us a knowledgeable organization to coment on our regulatory program.
In your recent letter to me you recomended that we extend our comercial processor visitation progrcm to obtain a more in-depth and accurate view of the personnel dosimetry problem. 11e agree with you.
The very. limited number of visits that we funded oave us invaluable insight into che dosicetry proble=s and was clso instrumental in effecting some improvement.
k'e plan to fund a nore extensive program of this type during FYlgCO.
You also suggested that a third round of testing may be necessary after the extended visitation program is concleted. L'e recognize this possiblitt),
and at present we are giving it serious consideration. Our preliminary view of the second round of testing is that it was not successful. Our contractor advises us that there was very little improvecent over the first round. These results indicate (1) that sone of the processors have not taken the pilot study very scriously, (2) that our visitation program probably should have been conducted between the first and second rounds, and (3) that, prior to the extended visits, or a third round of testing, the ilRC staff should recomnend to the Cnmission positive action to convince the processors that regulatory action is definitely going to be taken soon to improve the personnel dosimetry problem.
In this connection we plan to recomed publication in the Federal Register, within a few weeks, of an advance notice of rulemaking, describing the alternative actions being considered by our staff and inviting cc=9nts.
Ibis. advance notice is to be followed very soo:2 by a recorTnendation for a
~
2032 M i
)
.r
t l.
a George W. Canpbell 2
notice of propose [rulema'ing which 1111 present the propose'd rogulations for coment. As you can see, the Comission's rulexking process uill likely be conducted in parallel with the extended visitation pronraq and, possibly, a third round of ' testing.
In your letter you expressed your willingnesssto meet with us to discuss these problems.
We believe a cetting would be of great value and that it Shauld be held pronptly.
I have asi:ed tir. Alexandar to contact you by telephone to arrange a mutually convenient date.
As reguired by recent legislation, the imC will, within a few renths, submit a report to the Congress on our ongoing efforts regarding the health effects of low-leve! radi6 tion.
The nain purpose of this report is to advise the Congress regarding a feasibility planning study for epidemiologic research.
Since personnel dosimetry will inevitably have a key role in any epidemiological studies of this type, this report would be iccomplete without atlleast a brief discussion on this point. With regard to any mention of the results of the pilot study, I will be very interested to hear your vie 0s during our meeting.
Sincerely, Crici=al aw D W 3.1,in g Robert B. !!!nogue, Director Office of Standards Development 2} ? ts 9 es .}}