ML20058N067
| ML20058N067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/09/1993 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Williamson D ALABAMA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312210227 | |
| Download: ML20058N067 (9) | |
Text
_ - --
pa us g-
-s
'e E
UNITED STATES
- * * * *,/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- g wasninovow, o.c. romuooi December 9, 1993 Donald E. Williamson State Health Officer, M.D.
Department of Public Health 434 Monroe Street Montgomery, AL 36130-3017
Dear Dr. Williamson:
Region II State Agreements OfficerThis is to confirm the discussion M
. Woodruff, NRC held on July 23, 1993 with State's radiation control program.you and your staff following our re, v As a result of our review of the State's program and th the staff determined that overall the Alabama program f e routine regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the or public health and safety.
withheld because the State has not adopted regulations equiv lHow to " Financial Assurance and Recordkee a ent Appendix A" and " Emergency Planning." ping for Decommissioning, Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Cat Indicator.
compatibility by NRC,For those regulations deemed a matter of egory I as practicable, but no later than three years after the effState regu date of the NRC regulation.
ective needed for adoption by the State:In addition, the following rules are by January 1,Against Radiation," 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (56 FR 61" Stand (1) 1994; (2) 352 needed Equipment," 10 CFR Part 34 amendment (55 FR 843) ne d d b" Safe January 10, 1994; (3) " Notification of Incidents," 10 CFR Parts ee y
20, 31, 34, 39, 40, and 70 amendments (55 FR 40757) needed by October 15, 1994; and (4) " Quality Management' Program and Misadministrations " 10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56 F became effective on, January that 27, 1992 and will be needed by January 27, 1995.
dates indicated in order for the program to maintainThese rules will ne compatibility.
rules and 10 CFR Part 20 have been drafted.We understand t wo overdue (Alabama Chapter 420-3-26.03)
The Part 20 rules scheduled for adoption by January 1,and the overdue reg l ti ua ons are because it includes the basic radiation protectionequivalen 1994.
The State's r ant standards, 2000G8
\\
9312210227 931209 PDR STPRG ESGAL PDR
$ PO L gg \\
p.
Donald E. Williamson, M.D.
2 kb JfC-g10g i
which are used by the NRC and all of the Agreement State radiation control programs.
Therefore, we strongly encourage the i
State to meet its scheduled January 1, 1994 date for promulgation of the State's equivalent to 10 CFR Part 20 and the two overdue i
regulations.
+
Uniformity among regulatory agencies on Division 1 rules is an important part of the Agreement State Program, and we urge your staff to make every effort to expedite the final adoption of these rules and the others identified in Enclosure 2.
Please inform me within 30 days of this letter of your schedule, including interim milestones, for completing all actions necessary to implement the revisions to your regulations, i
especially the new Part 20 equivalent. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State Programs. is a summary of the review findings that were discussed with Mr. Kirksey E.
Whatley, Director, Division of Radiation Control and his staff during our exit meeting.
As indicated, we request specific responses from the State on the comments in Enclosure 2 within 30 days from the date of this letter.
We apprecfate your support of the radiation control program and l
their regulatory efforts to protect public health and safety.
We i
also appreciate your cooperation with this office and the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Woodruff during the review.
A copy of this letter and the enclosures are provided for placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
Sincerely, dh/L 3 4 Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Pr rams
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
K. E. Whatley, Director, Division of Radiation Control i
D. Hines, M.D., State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room l
l l
r
-Donald E. Williamson,z:M.D.'
2?
A- $ $3 d
1
')
which are ussd'by thn NRC and all;of'the AgrGctcnt'Stato
~
radiation control' programs.
Therafore,.we;strongly encourage:the.
State to meet-itsischeduled January 1, 1994-date forzpromulgationi
.,4 of the State's-equivalent-to.10 CFR Part 20land:the two overdual regulations.
Uniformity among regulatory agencies on;DivisionE1 rules-is an-important part of the-Agreement State-ProgramMand wa urge your j
staff to make every effort to-expedite the final adoption of'
,j these rules:and the1others! identified'in Enclosure 2.,
Please q
inform me within 30. days;of this" letter of your schedule,-
including interin' milestones; for completing alltactions=
necessary to-implement the revisions-to'your' regulations,-
especially the.new Part 20 equivalent. contains an explanation.of our policies and. practices-for reviewing Agreement State Programs.
Enclosuref2Jis a summary of the review. findings that.were discussed.with Mr. Kirksey'E.
Whatley, Director, Division 'of Radiation Control andi his : staff.
1 0
during our exit meeting.
As-indicated,-we. request =specificc responses from the State 'on the comments in Enclosure 2 :within ~30.
{
days from the date-of this letter.
1 We appreciate your support of the radiation controliprogram1and'
!i their regulatory efforts to protect public health and safety.- We.
also appreciate your cooperationfwith this1 office'and;the courtesy and cooperation extended by your. staff to Mr. Woodruff during the review.
i
~)
A copy of this letter and the enclosures are provided for -
II placement in the State Public Document RoomJor otherwise'to'be made available for public review.-
i I
Sincerely, i
L NG RT' Richard L.1Bangart,: Director office of State: Programs j
1
Enclosures:
As stated l{
1 cc w/ enclosures:
See next page.
I i
Distribution:
See next page.
- See previous concurrence.
OFC! RII:RSAO
-.. !'OS'P: SA: AAD !.
4
+RII:DRSS 4.R.A_:RII,
-...._4
.........+.
! SEbneter ;I 'C.Ma.u_P n
~+
4 '.... - 4.'...
NME ! Woodruff !JStohr i
IJSurmeierL. E R
+
+______.4....
DTE!11/9/93*
!11/9/93*
!11/9/93* ! 11/15/93*L -!'11/16/93*: '!
OFC ! OSP:DD
! NMSS:D
!OGC 4.O.S.P:.D.
_4.DEDS 4.E.D.O.
!L 4
4 4
4....
R,BernerodSTreby -
RLBangart HLThompson g aylor NME SSchwartz DTE!11/23/93* ! 11/22 /93 *! 1122/93* ! 11/17/93* !11/ /93- ' !11/
/93'!!
G:DTWO/93 LETTER.AL with rev1sions p-*-
o yey.e-+e
-y,,,-,
9--p-.w,,-
2+y
,ean>ya-
- 6eww m wW
-b W-F
- 6 W-M t'
wFT"#S 4ew---
W r'rw4*w N-M
-.--.. ~....
i 6
.L Donald E. Williamson, M.D.
3
-l l
cc w/ enclosures:
j K.
E. Whatley, Director, Division of' Radiation ~ Control-D. Hines, M.D.,
State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room l
State Public Document Room.
i l
i r
bec w/ enclosures:
-l The Chairman l
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick i
Commissioner de Planque JTaylor
.[
i DKRathbun SEbneter, RA/RII
[
l Distribution:
l DIR RF j
SA RF l
EDO RF-1
'JMTaylor, EDO l-HThompson, DEDS RBernero, NMSS STreby, OGC RLBangart JSurmeier i
SSchwartz CMaupin' l
JPStohr, RII RWoodruff, RII l
BTrojanowski, RII i
7 DCD. -)(SP01) 3 l
"TCombs l
SDroggitis Alabama File 1
i i
l i
i i
t i
?
L
if Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Acreement State Radiation Control Procrams" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," were published in the Federal Reaister on May 28, 1992, as an NRC Policy Statement.
The Guidelines provide 30 indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas.
Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If significant problems exist in several Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
Category Il indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.
Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program areas.
i.e.,
those that fall under Category I indicators.
Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category I indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following manner.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each comment made.
If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant Category I comments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period.
The Commission will be informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend.or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Act, as amended.
ENCLOSURE 1
{
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS ALABAMA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 14, 1991 TO JULY 23, 1993 SCOPE OF REVIEW r
This program review was conducted in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs published in the Federal Reaister on May 28, 1992 and the internal procedures established by the State Agreements Program, Office of State Programs.
The review included discussions with program management and staff, accompaniments of State inspectors, technical evaluation of selected license files and compliance files (casework), and the evaluation of the l
State's response to an NRC questionnaire that was sent'to the State in preparation for the review.
The 21st regulatory program review meeting with Alabama representatives was held during the periods of June 30-July 2, and July 19-23, 1993.
Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the period of June 30-July 2, 1993, and the Office review was conducted in Montgomery, Alabama, during the period of July 19-23, 1993.
The State was represented by Mr. Kirksey E. Whatley, Director, Division of Radiation Control, Bureau of Health Care Standards.
The NRC was represented by Mr. Richard Woodruff, Regional State Agreements Officer, Region -
II.
A summary meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was held on July 23, 1993 with Dr. Donald E.
Williamson, State Health Officer, Mr. James W. Cooper, Director, Bureau of Health Care Standards, and Mr. Whatley.
An exit meeting with Mr. Whatley and his technical staff was held just prior to the exit meeting with Dr. Williamson.
CONCLUSION The program for control of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health.
However, a finding of compatibility is being withheld because the State has not adopted regulations equivalent to " Financial Assurance and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning, Appendix A" and " Emergency Planning."
)
STATUS OF PREVIOUS NRC COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
Comments and recommendations from NRC's previous review-were sent to the State in a letter dated August 14, 1991.
All of the comments were satisfactorily resolved except that the Appendix A part of the decommissioning rule was not adopted in the final rule.
Other comments and recommendations were resolved as documented during our visit on July 8-10, 1992.
ENCLOSURE 2
f 2
I CURRENT REVIEW COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS All 30 indicators were reviewed in depth and the State fully i
satisfies the guidelines in 28 of these indicators.
Specific comments and recommendations for the two remaining indicators are as follows:
1.
Status and Comnatibility of Regulations.(Category I)'
Comment The State's regulations are compatible with the NRCL 1
regulations up to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments on' j
" Financial Assurance'and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning"-
that became effective on July 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018).
The above rule was adopted by the State; however,-the' equivalent i
rule to 10 CFR Part 30, Appendix.A, was.omitted from-the.
I final rule.
The program has drafted proposed revisions:to their regulations and the regulations are projected to become l
effective by January 1,.1994.
The' regulation package contains proposed regulations that are equivalent to the j
following NRC regulations.
I
" Financial Assurance and Recordkeeping for-Decommissioning," 10'CFR Parts 30,-Appendix A-amendment j
that became effective on July 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018).
j l
l l
" Emergency Planning," 10 CFR Parts 30, 4 0,. and ' 70 l
amendments that became effective on April 7, 1990 (54 FR 14061).
l t
l
" Standards for Protection Against Radiation," 10 CFR-
[
Part 20 amendment (56 FR 61352)-that was adopted on June 20, 1991, and will be implemented on January 1,.
I 1994.
The above package of rules was discussed verbally during.the l
review and the rules are being reviewed by the Regional State Agreements Officer.
Comments will be provided to the l
State under separate cover from the Region II Office.
The current Program Director, by Staff Memorandum, has i
directed the staff to implement the provision.of " Appendix A" criteria and the " Emergency' Planning" rule through-the i
licensing process.
At present, the State does not have any licensee that would be required to have an-Emergency Plan l
under the NRC criteria, and' financial assurance has been' l
required for two licensees.
l
~.
a.-.-.-.a-..--..
. ~ -,.,
1 i
3
,I t
i The following regulations were also identified to the State as needed for compatibility:
j
" Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment," 10
)
CFR Part 34 amendment (55 FR 843) that became effective j
on January 10, 1991 and will be needed by January 10, i
1994.
i i
" Notification.of Incidents," 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, and 70 amendments (56 FR 40757) that became-effective on October 15, 1991 and will be needed by October 15, 1994.
" Quality Management Program and Misadministrations," 10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56 FR 34104) that became 4
effective on January-27, 1992 and will be needed by January 27, 1995.
l Recommendation-We recommend that the State continue its regulation
)
amendment efforts to include those rules needed for compatibility.
In addition, the State should notifylthe Region II Office when the rules become effective.-
l 2.
Administrative Procedures (Category II)
Comment t
The program should establish written internal procedures to assure that the staff performs its duties as required and to provide a~high degree of uniformity and continuity-in regulatory practices.
Administrative ~ procedures are in-l addition to the technical procedures-utilized in licensing, and inspection and enforcement, j
i The State maintains a bound journal with entries concerning allegations, incidents, and misadministrations.
In addition, the State's administrative procedures have separate procedures concerning. transportation incidents and investigation of overexposures.
The State also has i
procedures concerning employee allegations.
A discussion was held with the Program Director and the Director of the Radioactive Materials Compliance Branch concerning the need to update the administrative procedures with respect to allegations from members of the public and licensees.
. 1 m.
sa
+vs
,ma
(-
p er3w--pp
O i
j' 4
Recommendation i
We recommend that the program update the Administrative Procedures Manual with respect to the reporting, investigation, handling, filing, and distribution of all allegations, incidents, and misadministrations.
SUMMARY
DISCUSSIONS WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVES A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. on Friday July 23, 1993 with Dr. Donald E. Williamson, State Health Officer; j
Mr. James W. Cooper, Director, Bureau of Health Care Standards; and Mr. Kirksey E. Whatley, Director, Division of Radiation Control.
The scope of the review was discussed along with specific NRC staff comments and recommendations on Status and Compatibility of Regulations and the regulations which are needed to maintain-compatibility.
Dr. Williamson was informed that the program was l
adequate and compatible, contingent upon the State's final adoption of the proposed regulation package containing amendments regarding " Financial Assurance and Recordkeeping for.
Decommissioning, Appendix A" and " Emergency Planning."- As a -
)
result, a finding of' compatibility is withheld until Alabama promulgates the above subject regulations.
In addition, Dr. Williamson was informed that the review (including the technical comments) would be reported to the State in a letter signed by the Director, Office of State Programs, and that a written reply would be requested.
In reply, Dr. Williamson related that he would be looking forward to our letter, and he was appreciative of our comments and recommendations.
He also expressed his support of the program and related that the State could adopt the needed regulations by January 1, 1994.
l i
l