ML20203L267
| ML20203L267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/22/1986 |
| From: | Murley T NRC |
| To: | Grossi M NEW YORK, NY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605010199 | |
| Download: ML20203L267 (6) | |
Text
_ _ - - - - _ _ _
Q w
g fb l April 22,1986 Margaret T. Grossi, M.D.
Acting Comissioner of Health New York City Department of Health 125 Worth Street New York, New York 10013
Dear Dr. Grossi:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. John McGrath and Mr. Joel Lubenau held on March 6,1986 with Assistant Comissioner Reisberg during our recent followup review of the City's radiation control program. The followup review was 1
conducted primarily because of the recent retirements of two senior, key staff members in the program and concerns over the impacts of these staff changes on 1
the licensing quality and inspection backlogs, and to followup selected coments and recommendations that we made following our last review.
The results of our followup review indicate that the City has made improvements in the program with regard to improving documentation and supplementing the i
radioactive materials staff. However, we cannot offer a statement of program I
compatibility until the proposed amendments updating the City Health Code have been adopted.
Status of Regulations is a Category I indicator. Pursuant to NRC Guidelines, the City should have regulations essentially identical to 10 CFR parts 19 and 20 and highly uniform with other NRC regulations. The City Health Code was last amended in 1977. The Bureau for Radiation Control has prepared proposed amendments to the Code which have been reviewed and concurred in by NRC. These amendments should be acted upon by the Board of Health as soon as possible.
Please keep us informed of the Department's actions.
j As noted earlier, we are concerned that the recent retirement of two key staff members has had a significant impact on the Department's program. The position of Radioactive Materials Division Chief is being held by the Inspection Field Supervisor on an acting basis. No one is performing the Inspection Field Supervisor duties full-tine although the X-ray Inspection Supervisor is assisting the Radioactive Materials Division on a part-time basis. We believe that these two positions should be filled on a permanent basis as soon as possible.
In addition, the part-time clerical position in radioactive materials should be made a permanent full-time position. The current staffing i
situation is contributing to the delay in the implementation of some of our recommendations following the last review.
During our last review, we made some specific recomendations regarding train-ing for the Bureau technical staff. Unfortunately, the staff did not attend j
all of the recomended courses. With the addition of new staff, the need for i
training has become even more urgent. During this review, Mr. McGrath provided I
one-on-one training to the staff in medical licensing. We recomenced to Dr.
Solon specific courses we felt were needed by certain staff members. The
)
specific r.! commendations are listed in Enclosure 3.
Tuition, travel and per i
g i
4
D.
e, Margaret T. Grossi, M.D.
2 diem costs for this training will be paid by NRC. We would appreciate a commitment that the recommended staff training will be obtained. The Department should also consider training needs for any additional new staff members.
During the course of our review, we became aware of a New York Department of Labor (DOL) report on the Bureau's instrument calibration practices. The re-port alleges several irregularities with regard to calibration procedures. We-were informed that Bureau staff agree with some of the observations made by D0L, but disagree with others. We.suggest that although D0L has not officially.
addressed its findings to the Department of health, a response to each of the allegations should be prepared by the Bureau and appropriate corrective action be taken. We were informed that the Bureau plans to establish a separate cali-bration facility and in the meantime have the State Department of Health per-form confirmatory calibrations on the Bureau's equipment. We support this approach. During our next regular review we will examine this aspect again.
We would appreciate your review of our comments and recommendations and receiv-ing your specific plans to address them. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. is a copy of this letter for placement in the City's Public Docu-ment Room or to otherwise be made available for public review.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to Messrs. McGrath and Lubenau by your staff during the review.
Sincerely, OrigTnal bigned by.
Thomas E. Murley Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs"
- 2. Letter to Margaret T. Grossi, M.D.,
from T. E. Murley, dated
- 3. Training Recommendations for Bureau Radiation Control Staff cc:
(w/Encls)
Distribution:
L. Solon, NYCH SP01 D. Axelrod, NYSH L. Roberts, NYSL H. Williams, NYDEC G. W. Kerr, OSP NRC Public Document Room S
h kth/mrf WKe 1n p"iurl ey s
(/7/86 h / /86 M/
/86 f/
86 y B6 i
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 December 4,1981 as an NRC Policy Statement.
The Guide provides 30 Indicators for evaluating Agreenent 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 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.
If at least one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority basis. When more than one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would request an immediate response, and may perform a follow-up review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement.
Category II comments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore woulo not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public.
The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
e
I l'
l
[f wrea,%
u UNITED STATES ENCLOSURE 2
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3,,
g REGION I r,
j o
631 PARK AVENUE i
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYl.VANIA 19406 l
April 22, 1986 Margaret T. Grossi, M.D.
Acting Commissioner of Health New York City Department of Health 125 Worth Street New York, New York 10013
Dear Dr. Grossi:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. John McGrath and Mr. Joel Lubenau held on March 6,1986 with Assistant Commissioner Reisberg during our recent followup review of the City's radiation control program.
The followup review was con-ducted primarily because of the recent retirements of two senior, key staff members in the program and concerns over the impacts of these staff changes on the licensing quality and inspection backlogs, and, to followup selected com-ments and recommendations that we made following our last review.
The results of our followup review indicate that the City has made improve-ments in the program with regard to improving documentation and supplementing the radioactive materials staff. However, we cannot offer a statement of pro-gram compatibility until the proposed amendments updating the City Health Coda have been adopted.
Status of Regulations is a Category I indicator.
Pursuant to NRC Guidelinr.s, the City should have regulations essentially identical to 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 and highly uniform with other NRC regulations.
The City Health Code was last amended in 1977.
The Bureau for Radiation Control has prepared proposed amendments to the Code which have been reviewed and concurred in by NRC.
These amendments should be acted upon by the Board of Health as soon as possible.
Please keep us informed of the Department's actions.
As noted earlier, we are concerned that the recent retirement of two key staff members has had a significant impact on the Department's program.
The position of Radioactive Materials Division Chief is being held by the Inspection Field Supervisor on an acting basis.
No one i; performing the Inspection Field Su-pervisor duties full-time although the ) ray Inspection Supervisor is assisting the Radioactive Materials Division on a : art-time basis. We believe that these two positions should be filled on a pern inent basis as soon as possible.
In addition, the part-time clerical positio1 in radioactive materials should be made a permanent full-time position. The current staffing situation is contribu-ting to the delay in the implementation of some of our recommendations following the last review.
During our last review, we made some specific recommendations regarding train-ing for the Bureau technical-staff.
Unfortunately, the staff did not attend all of the recommended courses.
With the addition of new staff, the need for training has become even more urgent.
During this review, Mr. McGrath provided one-on-or.a training to the staff in medical licensing. We recommended to Dr.
Solon specific courses we felt were needed by certain staff members. The specific recommendations are listed in Enclosure 3.
Tuition, travel and per
b Margaret T. Grossi, M.D.
2 diem costs for this training will be paid by NRC.
We would appreciate a commitment that the recommended staff training will be obtained.
The Department should also consider training needs for any additional new staff members.
~
During the course of our review, we became aware of a New York Department of Labor (DOL) report on the Bureau's instrument calibration practices.
The re-port alleges several irregularities with regard to calibration procedures.
We were informed that Bureau staff agree with some of the observations made by D0L, but disagree with others.
We suggest that although D0L has not officially addressed its findings to the Department of Health, a response to each of the allegations should be prepared by the Bureau and appropriate corrective action be taken.
We were informed that the Bureau plans to establish a separate cali-bration facility and in the meantime have the State Department of Health per-form confirmatory calibrations on the Bureau's equipment.
We support this approach.
During our next regular review we will examine this aspect again.
We would appreciate your review of our comments and recommendations and receiv-ing your specific plans to address them. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. is a copy of this letter for placement in the City's Public Docu-ment Room or to otherwise be made available for public review.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to Messrs. McGrath and Lubenau by your staff during the review.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs"
- 2. Letter to Margaret T. Grossi, M.D.,
from T. E. Murley, dated April 22, 1986
- 3. Training Recommendations for Bureau Radiation Control Staff cc:
(w/Encis)
L. Solon, NYCH D. Axelrod, NYSH L. Roberts, NYSL I
H. Williams, NYDEC G. W. Kerr, OSP NRC Public Document Room 4
1 ENCLOSURE 3 TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUREAU OF RADIATION CONTROL STAFF Mr. Kamble
- Introduction to Licensing Procedures Health Physics and Radiation Protection Mr. Harmon Introduction to Licensing Procedures Medical Use of Radioisotopes Mr. Mazzola
- Health Physics and Radiation Protection Health Physics and Radiation Protection Ms. Perlmutter L