ML20212K029
| ML20212K029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1986 |
| From: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Axelrod D NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701280443 | |
| Download: ML20212K029 (6) | |
Text
?-
6 l-December 4, 1986 David Axelrod, M.D., Commissioner New York State Department of Health Empire State Plaza Tower Building Albany, New York 12237
Dear Dr. Axelrod:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. John McGrath, Region I State Agreements Officer, held with you and your staff on October 31, 1986 following our review and evaluation of the Department's radiation control program.
As a result of our review of the Department's program and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the Department, the' staff believes that the Department's program for regulating agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
We must, however, defer a finding of compati-bility due to the status of the Department's radiation control regulations.
We were pleased to note that work has continued on revising the Department's regulations.
A second draft was provided to Mr. McGrath for NRC review and we will provide comments as soon as possible.
V 'inderstand that there are still a number of steps in the Department's internal review process and we recommend that the process be expedited as much as possible.
We were pleased to note a number of significant improvements in the Depart-ment's program.
The effort to emphasize more stringent enforcement is a good step.
The licensing program is in excellent shape and the staff's effort in revising the Bureau 's licensing guides is commendable. We were also impressed by the high quality of inspections we observed as part of the review.
One remaining problem area, however, is clerical support for the regional offices, particularly New Rochelle. We believe the Department should continue its efforts to reduce the administrative burden on the professional staff. to this letter contains an additional comment on a technical aspect of the Bureau's program. We would appreciate Dr. Rimawi's review and response to this comment. to this letter contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs.
We are also enclosing a second copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
i
/
)
8701280443 861204 s
PDR STPRG ESGN
(
2 I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by you and your staff to Mr. McGrath during the review.
Sincerely, origrnal'signea tnr Thomas E. Murley Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
(w/Encls.)
Distribution:
S. Joseph, NYCH TMurley L. Roberts, NYSL JA11an H. Williams, NYDEC JMcGrath K. Rimawi, NYSH DNussbaumer G. W. Kerr, OSP SP01 NRC Public Document Room SEE PREVIOUS WHITE FOR CONCURRENCE
[TMurley SA f
- 0SP
- E00 DRA J
eth/mrf GWKerr VStello IV 12/:k/86 11/21/86 11/24/86 1 J/86 12F /86 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l
i l
David Axelrod, M.D., Comissioner
~
l New York State Department of Health j
l Enpire State Plaza Tower Building Albany, New York 12237
Dear Dr. Axelrod:
This is to confim the discussion Mr. John McGrath, Region I State Agreements Officer, held with you and your staff on October 31, 1986 following our review and evaluation of the Departnent's radiation control progran.
As a result of our review of the Departnent's program and the routine exchange of infornation between the NRC and the Department, the staff believes that the Department's progran for regulating agreement naterials is adequate to protect the public health and safety. We must, however, defer a finding of compati-bility due to the status of the Department's radiation control regulations.
We were pleased to note that work has continued on revising the Department's regulations. A second draft was provided to Mr. McGrath for NRC review and we will provide coments as soon as possible. Ve understand that there are still a number of steps in the Department's internal review process and we recommend that the process be expedited as much as possible.
t He were pleased to note a number of significant inprovenents in the Depart-nent's program. The effort to emphasize more stringent enforcenent is a good step. The licensing progran is in excellent shape and the staff's effort in revising the Bureau 's licensing guides is connendable. We were also inpressed by the high quality of inspections we observed as part of the review. One
2 remaining problem area, however, is clerical support for the regional offices, particularly New Rochelle. We believe the Department should continue its efforts to reduce the administrative burden on the professional _ staff. to this letter contains an additional comment on a technical aspect of the Bureau's program. We would appreciate Dr. Rimawi's review and response to this coment. to this letter contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. We are also enclosing a second copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Docunent Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by you and your staff to Mr. McGrath during the review.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
(w/encls.)
Distribution:
S. Joseph, NYCH TMurley L. Roberts, NYSL JA11an G. Williams, NYDEC JMcGrath K. Rinawi, NYSH DNussbaumer G. W. Kerr, OSP SP01 NRC Public Document Room b
DRA RA SA0 ' ///* Os JMc r th/arfM GWRttr 11/r{/86 JA11an TMurley 11/j//86 11/;/86 11/ /86 11/ /86
.c
.3 -
1 r-COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEA1.TH
~
PADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM Compliance Enforcement Procedures is a Category I indicator. The following comnent-and recommendation relate to problems of minor significance.
Comment Our review of enforcenent correspondence and inspection reports revealed that enforcement letters did not always employ appropriate regulatory language and reports did not always provide adequate support for violations noted in the letter. The first problem appeared to be limited to one regional office while the second problem involved a seccnd region. Although the letters and reports are being reviewed in Albany (albeit subsequent to dispatch to the licensee) and some deficiencies were pointed out to the regions, these problems continue.
Reconmendation l
We recommend that the Bureau strengthen its oversight of regional operations to i
assure that Bureau policies are being properly carried out, specifically that enforcement correspondence follow appropriate and consistent regulatory standards and inspection reports adequately document inspecti e findings l
including violations.
r
s-Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State kadiation Control l
Programs," were published in the Federal Register on December 4, 1981 as l
an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 30 Indicators for i
evaluating Agreement State program areas.
Guidance as to their relative j
importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the i
Indicators into 2 categories.
i Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If j
siggificant 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 f
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 canner.
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 l
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 would not be. critical tosthe 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.
l
-- -