ML20150C402
| ML20150C402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/11/1988 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Dandoy S UTAH, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803180229 | |
| Download: ML20150C402 (4) | |
Text
.
-i VM i 11988 Suzanne Dandoy, M.D.
Executive Director State Department of Health P. O. Box 16700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0700
Dear Dr. Dandoy:
This confirms the discussion Mr. Robert J. Doda held with Mr. Venneth L. Alkema on January 29, 1988, following our 1988 review of the Utah radiation control program. Mr. Donald N. Mackenzie of NRC's State, local, and Indian Tribe Programs was also present at this meeting.
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of infonnation between the NRC and the State of Utah, the staff believes that the Utah program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety and is compatible with NRC's program for regulation of similar materials. contains our technical coments regarding the program, and you may wish to have Mr. Larry Anderson respond directly to these coments. An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 2.
Our review disclosed that all other program indicators were within NRC guidelines. Also, a number of other technical matters were discussed with the radiation control staff and resolved during the course of the review meeting.
On April 12, 1987, NRC reorganized its staff. The State Agreements Program is now a part of the new Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reports to the Conunission. One purpose of this organizational change was to provide ol 8803180229 880311 PDR STPRO ESGUT DCD j
t 7
Suzanne Dandoy, M.D.
-?-
~
ER I 1 g
'an improved focus for NRC relationships with the states Our regional offices will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory program. We encourage you and your staff to continue to look to the Regional Administrator and his staff as the primary contact with NRC.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Doda and Mr. Mackenzie during the review meeting. Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for review.
Sincerely, Orginal Signed by Carlica Kammerer Carlton Kamerer, Director State, local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs cc w/encis:
Mr. Kenneth L. Alkema, Director Division of Environmental Health Mr. Larry Anderson, Director Bureau of Radiation Control Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC Robert Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV, NRC State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room bec w/encls:
C. Kamerer, SLITP W. L. Brown S. Schwartz, SLITP W. L. Fisher D. A. Nussbaumer, SLITP H. Denton, GPA D. N. Mackenzie, SLITP G. F. Sanborn R. D. Martin J. T. Gilliland R. L. Bancart Utah File DMB SP01 P EDO P/F Chaiman Zech Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Rogers Comissio er Carr N
yhr RIV:SAO' w RA P
SLI)pA
/DD D/SL P
).SSc wartz CCKamerer RJDoda:jc RDMartin DANof5baumer 3/3 /88 3/) /88 3/l,'.?
/ 3/ /88 3/7/88
\\3/d/88
ENCLOSURE 1 Technical Comments and Recommendations on the Utah Radiation Control Program for Agreement Materials A.
Adequacy of Product Evaluations (Category I Indicator). The following minor comment and recommendations were discussed in detail with the Bureau staff during the review meeting.
Comment Two Sealed Source and Device Registry sheets and files were reviewed during the meeting. Detailed discussions were held with various staff members concerning specific procedures and entries on the registry sheets. The following recommendations are made as a result of our review.
Recommendations A distinction should be made between the manufacturer and distributor of the sealed source or device.
Some corporate entities perform only one of these functions and should be identified as such on the registry sheet.
In addition, the Bureau should include a safety analysis statement in registry sheets. NRC normally includes a safety analysis statement in its registry sheets and we believe Utah should follow this practice.
B.
Inspection Reports (Category I Indicator). The following minor comment and recommendation were discussed with the staff during the review meeting.
, Comment The Bureau's inspection reports generally did not specify with whom the inspector held the exit meeting at the conclusion of the inspection.
Even though it is the Bureau's policy to close out the inspection with the highest level of management available at the conclusion of the inspection, we believe the following recommendation is necessary to document this l
j important aspect of the inspection.
f Recommendation We recommend that the Bureau's inspection reports identify the individual, and his management position, with whom the inspector held the exit meeting at the end of the inspection.
l
Application of "Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The "Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 29 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 2 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 II 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 coment made.
If no significant Category I coments tre 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 coments 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 coments, 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 infonnation is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the infomation through follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review.
l NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The l
l Comission will be infonned of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreemenc 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 t
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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.
l l
9