ML20151G771
| ML20151G771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/15/1988 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Word J TENNESSEE, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804200134 | |
| Download: ML20151G771 (6) | |
Text
901
- /l Leo 4,,
UNITED STATES d
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
5 E
W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555
%*****/
APR 151988 Mr. James E. Word, Commissioner Department of Public Health 344 Cordell Hull Building Nashville, TN 37219
Dear Comissioner Word:
This is to confirm the discussion NRC Representatives held on January 29, 1988, with you and selected members of your staff following our review of the State's Radiation Control Program (RCP).
Your staff was represented by M. D. Huggins, M. T. Bruner, M. H. Mobley, C. P. West and D. Shultz.
The NPC was represented by R. L. Woodruff, H. R. Denton, J. O. Lubenau and W. J. Adam.
The results of our review indicate that the Tennessee Radiation Control Program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. However, we are unable to offer a statement of compatibility pending the State's corrective actions for a Category I deficiency.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I Indicator.
The State should adopt regulations to maintain a high degree of uniformity with the NRC regulations.
For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but no later than three years after their adoption by NRC.
There have been several regulations adopted by NRC that the State needs to adopt to maintain compatibility.
These regulations are as follows:
(1) "Transportation Regulations Compatibility With IAEA", 10 CFP Part 71, effective September 6, 1983; (2) "Transfer for Disposal and Manifest", 10 CFR 20.311, effective December 27,1983; and (3)
- Elimination of Exemption for Glass Enamel and Glass Enamel Frit", 10 CFR 40.13(c)(2), effective September 11, 1984.
In addition, there have been other regulations adopted by NRC since September 1384 that will be needed for compatibility.
An updated chronology of NRC amendments needed for compatibility and uniformity was provided to the State prior to the review.
We believe it is frperative that the State take the necessary actions to update the regulations to achieve compatibility with NRC.
We would appreciate receiving a schedule for accomplishing the updating.
Also, this will confirm the discussion with you and your staff concerning training for the program's technical staff. The nuclear industry regulated by Tennessee consists of a wide variety of complex licensees such as nuclear medicine, nuclear pharmacies, broad scope licer. sees, nuclear servicing and manufacturing facilities, and low level waste brokers.
All of these are regulated by the Nashville office, in conjunction with the area offices located in Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Memphis.
These factors create a need for continuing training or workshops for division personnel beyond the basic health physics training received by the employee or the courses provided by NRC. We perceive the need for Tennessee to develop a continuing training program to 8804200134 880415 PDR STPRO ESOT
Mr. James E. Word, Comissioner SPR 151988 inform and cross train the employees af both the Nashville and the Area Offices in State regulatory practices.
As discussed, Mr. Woodruff from cur Region II office will be available to work with Mr. Mobley on this project.
We were pleased to learn that you also will support continuing education or training for the Division employees.
, contains coments regarding the technical aspects of our review of the program.
These coments were discussed with Mr. Mobley and his staff during our exit meeting with him.
Mr. Mobley was advised at the time that a response to these findings would be requested by this office.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 2.
Also, a copy of this letter is included for placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
On April I?,1987, NRC reorgani:ed its staff.
The State Agreement Program is now a part of the new Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reports to the Comission. One purpose of this organizational change was to provide an improved focus for NRC relationships with the States.
Our regional offices will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory programs.
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 extended by your staff to Mr. Woodruff during the review.
Sincerely.
6tIginal Signed by Srlton K3mmerer Carlton Kamerer, Director State Local and Indian Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
1.
Coments and Reconuendations i
2.
Application of Guidelines cc w/encls:
Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations NRC J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, RII j
M. D. Huggins, Deputy Comissioner l
Department of Public Health M. i. Brunner, Assistant Comissioner Bureau of Environment M. H. Mobley, Director, Division j
of Radiological Health 1
NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room Distribution and concurrence on next page:
l 1
1 I
i
'\\
Mr. James E. Word, Comissioner Distribution w/encis:
R. L. Woodruff DocumentControlDesk(SP01)/
SA R/F Dir R/F Tennesseefile(fc)w/encls.
D. A. Nussbaumer C. Kamerer i
Reg n
W Refon$
W R
N-SLIT TP [ g,.
f RWoodruff:tm RETrojanowski JNGrace DANu aumer
$ch rtz 03/9/88 03/ t) /88 03/o /88 03///88 03/pg88 ITP EDO CKansnerer
[/88 f/,/88 j
l
ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE TENNESSEE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS 1.
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTPATION Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Connent The Radiation Control 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 for functions required of the program.
A.
The exchange of information is an important function of the program.
We noted that the State had 70 incidents during this review period that were reported to NRC.
However, a summary of the incidents was not available during the review.
Another copy of the All Agreement State letter. "Exchan Information on Incidents Involving Radioactive Materials,"ge of dated July 22, 1986, was provided to Mr. West and Mr. Mobley.
The suggested format for documention of incidents found in the letter is adaptable to a word processing system and allows for standardization and retrievability of the incident information by both our Agencies.
B.
We noted that the State does not have a specific procedure addressing the collection and processing of application fees and only the Administrative Supervisor could provide details of the fee assessment and collection procedure.
Another copy of the All Agreement State letter, "Suggested Content of Agreement State Administrative and Technical Procedures " dated May 13, 1987, was provided to Mr. Mobley and Mr. West.
Recommendation We recommend that the State reassess and develop their administrative procedures to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity for functions required of the program and we also recommend that the State adopt the standard format for reporting incidents to NRC.
II.
COMPLIANCE Inspection Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following comment is made with our recommendation.
2-e Comment 4
During our previous review, we recommended that the State review their inspection procedures for consistency with the NRC guides, revise as needed, and implement the procedures into the compliance program.
The State replied that a review of the State's current inspection procedures was in progress. However, during this review, we were informed that this project was never completed.
Recommendation We recommend that the State complete their assessment and revision of the inspection procedures and implement the procedures into the compliance program. We would like to have your schedule for comple-tion of this project.
i.
b i
l i
g
.-w
_m.
~
y
,-3.
-9 9.-
\\
1 ENCLOSURE ?
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 L(ate program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category 1 indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need f ar improvements may be critical.
Category II indicators address program functions which provide essentihl 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. CateLory 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 marner.
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 particuler program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the Sto.te'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 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 dues 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 acccrdance with Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.
. - -.