ML20154N349
| ML20154N349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/22/1988 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Joseph S NEW YORK, NY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809290277 | |
| Download: ML20154N349 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
h woog'o UNITED STATES E(
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COC11SS!ON o
,D
- E WASHINGYON, D. C. 20555
%*....}
SEP 2 21999 Stephan C. Joseph, M.D., M.P.H.
Comissioner of Health New York City Department of Health 125 Worth Street New York, New York 10013
Dear Dr. Joseph:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. John McGrath, Region I State Agreements Officer, held with you and your staff on June 24, 1988 during our review of the Department's radiation control program.
We were pleased to note the significant improvements in the program since our September 1986 review. We believe that the credit for these improvements belongs in no small measure to the newly appointed chief of the Radioactive Materials Division.
Dr. Kulikowski has, through strong leadership and dedication, succeeded in initiating fundamental changes in the program that address long-standing problems.
We are particularly impressed by his willingness to corsuit and cooperate with NRC on day-to-day problems and promptly respord to NRC advice and assistance.
There is, however, much work that remains to be done.
In particular, the Department faces a number of resource intensive tasks. These are discussed more completely in Enclosure 1 to this letter. Nonetheless, based on the results of this review, we believe that the Department's program is adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the Comission's program.
The 1e:hnical commentr in Enclosure 1 were discussed with the Bureau staff at the time of the review.
You may wish to have Dr. Solon respond to tnue coments directly to us.
In addition to these issues, we were disappointed to note that sirce relocating to its current Brooklyn address more than 2 years ago, the Bureau has not, as yet, been able to reestablish its laboratory at a new site within the City.
We encourage the Department to resolve this situation as soon as possible.
l to this letter contains an explanation of our policies and l
practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. We are also enclosing a I
second copy of this letter for placement in the City's Public Document Room or l
otherwise to be made available for public review.
l l
l l
l l
7 880922 hRGESGN g
's t
SEP 2 21988 Our regional office will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory programs. We encourage you and your staff to continue to look to the Regional Adninistrator and his staff as the primary contact with NRC.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. McGrath during the review.
Sincerely, Carlton Kamerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Prograns
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Leonard Solon, Ph.D., Director Bureau for Radiation Control, NYCDH Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC William Russell, Regional Administrator, NRC NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room Distribution:
SA R/F Dir R/F JMcGrath SP01 NYCDH file (fc)
J0Lubenau l
I t
%LM TA M
/['ll!
- 5.Ws: {0gik v
,0FC:
G Ng GIO
- 5L;;TP/SA
- 5LITP DD
- .....p.
,G.
k
- y...... (
.................~.
>.AME:J 4c rath/bh : Alla
- Wtussell 4 :JO ubenau :R et
- CKamerer l
bN E h k bb
[hhbb k bb Ik lk bb kbb 8b bb
o COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 1.
"Status and Compatibility of Regulations" i: a Category I indicator. The following comment and recomendation is considered to be not of major significance at this tine.
Coment The Department's radiation control regulations were last amended in 1986.
There are two amendments to NRC regulations, effective more than three years ago, which have not yet been incorporated into the City Health Code.
These relate to removal or obliteration of radiation warnings on empty containers and requiring licensees to provide advance notice of certain shipments of radioactive waste.
(Our criteria states that NRC amendments considered to be a matter of compatibility should be adopted by Agreement States within three years of the effective date of the NRC amendment.)
Recommendation In view of the fact that the Bureau has appointed a comittee to draft amendments to the City Health Code and has established a target date of November 1988 to prepare a complete revision of the Code for consideration by the Board of Health, we are prepared to offer a finding of compatibility at this time conditional on action by the Board of Health to adopt the above-mentioned rules by November 1938.
We recomend, however, that the Bureau consider the regulations to be a top priority task and that the November 1988 target date be a firm goal.
We will assist the Bureau in any way we can to facilitate this important task.
2.
"Office Equipment and Support Services" is a Category II indicator.
Coment Over the past few years, we have encouraged the Department to more effectively utilize automatic data processing in order to increase efficiency and staff productivity. We are pleased that the Bureau has made some progress in this area, but is in need of additional equipment to maximize its capability.
Recommendation We support the Bureau's efforts to improve its automatic data processing capability and recomend that the Bureau obtain increased memory capability and a printer for its current system.
3.
"Technical Quality of Licensing Actions" is a Category I indicator.
The following comment and recomendation is considered to be not of major significance at this time.
Coment During our September 1986 review, we identified significant deficiencies in two major broad licenses.
The deficiencies were in the area of inadequate supporting documentation, i.e., internal operating procedures, for the scope of program authorized.
During our follow-up review in April 1987, we noted that one license had been corrected while the second still needed some attention.
During this review, we were informed by Bureau staff that most broad licenses are currently up for renewal and that the licensees were put on notice that they would need to renew their licenses in their entirety, including the submittal of completely updated supporting documentation.
Recommendation We comend the Bureau for initiating this action and encourage the Bureau to adhere to this comitment.
Again, we are prepared to provide whatever technical assistance we can to assist the Bureau in achieving this important goal.
4.
"Status of Inspection Program" is a Category I indicator. The following comment and recomendation is considered to be not of major significance at this time.
Coment At the time of the review, 5 Priority II licenses were overdue for inspection, some by a significant amount of time.
The Bureau, however, has prepared a plan to address this situation.
The plan calls for the timely inspectica of these overdue licenses and the reissuance of three of these licenses as non-broad specific licenses thereby reducing their inspection priority.
Recomenda tion l
We encourage the Bureau to follow through on its plan and to maintain a closer watch on the status of the inspection program.
5.
"Responses to Incidents and Alleged Incidents" is a Category I indicator.
l The following coment and recomendation is considered to be not of major l
l significance at this time.
l l
t l
l l
l
Comment In the September-October 1987 time frame, a teletherapy misad'.inistration occurred at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. Although the Department's regulations do not yet require the reporting of medical misadminist.ations, the incident was repcrted to the Bureau.
Bureau staff had discussed the incident with the licensee by phone and reported some details to NRC.
An on-site investigation, however, was not conducted until the recent scheduled inspc:tior, of June 21-22, 1988.
Recommendation We note that the Bureau is generally efficient and timely in conducting incident investigations; however, beceuse of the increasing concern about medical misadministrations, this policy should also extend to these incidents.
In the Lenox Hill case, the misadministration was a symptom of broader licensee programnatic problems.
We have already received Dr. Solon's June 27, 1988 memorandum on this issue and no further response is necessary.
i l
l
...o u
Application of "Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The "Guidelinu for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were publisneo in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy Statement.
The Guidelines 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 esser.tial e
technical and administrative support for the primary program functions. Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in a
order to asoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program areas, i.e., those thet fall under Category I indicators. Catege,'y 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 comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate tc 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 che State's ability to protect the public hehlth and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluatica, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Cat.egory I coments, the staff may off'r findings of edequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offerir.g until the State's actions are examined and th*ir effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent : eview.
If additional infonnation u needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the infomation through follow-up correspondence or perfonn a follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State raoresentatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Comission will be informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement Stata programs and copies of the review cc,rrespondence to the States wi11 be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not i
ireprove or if additional significant '.ategory I deficiencies have developed, a I
staff finding th&t the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreemer.t in accordance with Section 274j of the A::t, as amended.
1 l
1
_