ML20211G068
| ML20211G068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/1987 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Jacqwan Walker KANSAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702250268 | |
| Download: ML20211G068 (3) | |
Text
-%y FEB 131987 Jack Walker, M.D., Secretary Department of Health and Environment Forbes Field, Building 740 Topeka, Kansas 66620
Dear Dr. Walker:
This confirms the discussions Mr. Robert J. Doda held with Charles V. Hamm, Special Assistant, and other staff members on January 30, 1987, following our review of the Kansas 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 Kansas, the staff believes that the Kansas program for the regulation of agruement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety and is compatible with NRC's program for regulation of similar materials. We were pleased to find that all of the program indicators were within NRC guidelines during this review period.
We also wish to commend the Bureau of Air Quality and Radiation Control for sponsoring the radioactive materials licensing workshop for all state licensees on September 7, 1986, and for publishing a radioactive materials newsletter. We understand the workshop was very well attended. These activities provide an excellent means of informing state licensees of current health and safety information and other Departmental policy matters.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as an enclosure. Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the Sta'.e Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to Mr. Doda during the review meeting.
Sincerely, ORfGINAL SIGNED 87 ROBERT D. WRTM Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page
/
Y
\\
,RI :SGAS O
RA ED0 RJDoda:jc is er RDMartin
\\
o J /4 /87
/ / 87
$/gq/87 2/,/87 9
0702250268 870219 PDR STPRG ESGK
cc w/encls:
David Romano, Director, Bureau of.
Air Quality and Radiation Control G. W. Kerr, Director Office of State Programs NRC Public Document Room
. State Public Document Room.
bec w/o encls:
V. Stello, EDO D. A. Nussbaumer, SP R. D. Martin P. S. Check R. L.-Bangart C. E. Wisner W. L. Brown W. L. Fisher R. S. Heyer G. F. Sanborn State File DMB - SP01
4 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 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 frecuently 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 coments 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 coments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
.