ML20209F448
| ML20209F448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/05/1986 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Wright G NEBRASKA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609120156 | |
| Download: ML20209F448 (3) | |
Text
a LEP : 0196 Gregg F. Wright, M.D., Director Department of Health 301 Centennial Mall South P. O. Box 95007 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Dear Dr. Wright:
This confirms the discussion Mr. Ralph S. Heyer held with Ms. Beth Macy, Mr. Burke Casari, and Mr. Harold Borchert on August 8, 1986, following our review of the Nebraska radiation control program.
A's a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the State of Nebraska, the staff believes that the Nebraska program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety. However, our review disclosed a significant problem in one program area relating to a Category I indicator,
" Status of Regulations." The last revision in entirety to the Nebraska radiation control regulations was done in 1981. The radiation control program staff needs to revise the regulations and incorporate items necessary for maintaining compatibility. Due to the lack of up-to-date radiation control regulations, we are unable to make a finding at this time that the Nebraska program is compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of similar materials. We would appreciate receiving a statement of the Department's plans for updating the regulations.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is enclosed.
Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for public viewing.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to R. S. Heyer during the review meeting.
Sincerely, Ortgnel W W andSW Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator l
Enclosure:
as stated cc:
See next page R IA E00 RCMartin RSHeber;p i RiDoda @Kerr' f /E /86 f /25/86 1/ LY86 / '/86 / /86 i
10 5
8609120156 PDR 860705 ')
STPRG ESGNE PDR
~
g , [ ti.i, cc w/ enclosure:
Beth Macy, Deputy Director Department of Health Harold P.erchert, Director Division of Radiological Health G. W. Kerr, OSP-NRC State Public Document Room bec w/ enclosures:
VStello, Jr., EDO RJDoda RDMartin GFSanborn PScheck RSHeyer CEWisner DANussbaumer, OSP RLBangart Nebraska File ,
WFisher DMB_for.Dist:(SP01)k READDIG HLE COPY AlY Official File COPY
E CEP 0 L N?E Enclosure Application cf " Guidelines for NRC Review i of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" i
The " Guidelines for NPC 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 i
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 reeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal i 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.
4 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 l State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affect the 4 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 followup review of the program within six months.
If the State p;ogram has not improved or if additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may inst' :ute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement. Category II comments would concern functions and activities I 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 l
these comments and the State s actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
i 1
~, -,~m , , , - . . , - , - - - , . , - , - - - , , - , , . , . - . , - , - - , - ,, ,.-e-, .e.---,--me,-n--- .... ,.m.-,-,,--~~n,, -,-n-_ . , .--..