ML20207L821
| ML20207L821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/06/1987 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Saltzman B ARKANSAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701120358 | |
| Download: ML20207L821 (4) | |
Text
n JAN 6 1987 Ben N. Saltzman, M.D., Director Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street-Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 _
Dear Dr. Saltzman:
This confirms the discussion Mr. Ralph S. Heyer held with you, Ms. Fay Dubbins, and Ms. Greta Dicus on December 4,1986, following our current review of the Arkansas radiation control program.
As a result of our review of the state's program and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the state of Arkansas, the staff believes that the Arkansas program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety and is compatible with NRC's program for regulating similar material. We were pleased to find that most of the program indicators were within NRC guidelines. We recomend closely monitoring the impact of the recent staff turnovers as explained in Enclosure 1. You may wish to have Ms. Dicus respond directly to this comment.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing the Agreement State program is attached as Enclosure 2. 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.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to Mr. Heyer during the review meeting.
Sincerely,
' O rir.inal Sigr.cd 127 p.mt s. check Robert D. Martin
, Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated cc: (See next page)
/
RIV:SGAS RSHeyer: c SGAS RJDoda Y f0
)h 12/l5/86 12/l4/86 1/ /87 12/ly86 12//r/86 8701120358 870106 PDR STPRG ESG ;
1 I
4 Dr. Ben N. Saltzman cc w/encls:
Ms. Fay Dubbins, Deputy Director
-Bureau of Environmental Health Services Ms. Greta Dicus, Director Radiation Control and Emergency Management Programs Mr. G. W. Kerr, Director Office of State Programs NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room bec w/encls:
V. Stello, Jr., ED0 G. F. Sanborn R. D. Martin R. S. Heyer P. S. Check D. A. Nussbaumer, OSP C. E. Wisner J. O. Lubenau, OSP R. L. Bangart Arkansas File W. L. Fisher DMB SP01 R. J. Doda
Enclosure 1 TECHNICAL COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE-ARKANSAS RADIATION COMINOL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I. Personnel Staff Continuity (Category II Indicator)
Comment:
During'this review period, one supervisory vacancy occurred for a senior
~
health physicist position. Another vacancy for a supervisory position will occur within approximately 30 days after the review meeting of December 4, 1986. The shortfall in staff for the overall agreement materials program will then be two well qualified supervisors. This also reduces significantly the overall person-years effort.
Recommendation:
Management should monitor very closely the reduction in qualified staff to assure that this does not adversely affect the radiation control program. Management should make every effort to obtain and retain persons of appropriate professional qualifications.
1 L _. __ _ -.
. Enclosure 2 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 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 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 coment 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 coment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical. The NRC would request an imediate response, and may perform a followup 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 coments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public. The State will asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.