ML20215C738
| ML20215C738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/03/1986 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Fox C ALABAMA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610100421 | |
| Download: ML20215C738 (4) | |
Text
[S$6/)h/
- gjpg, a
00703;!g y
Claude Earl Fox, M.D., M.P.H.
State Health Officer State Department of Public Health State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Dear Dr. Fox:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, NRC State Agreements Representative, and Mr. Donald A. Nussbaumer, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program held on September 5,
1986 with you, and Messrs. James V. Cooper, Michael G. Cash, and Aubrey V. Godwin following our follow-up review and evaluation of the State's Radiation Control Program.
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Alabama, the staff determined that overall the Alabama program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program.
In general, we are pleased with the actions the State has taken to correct the deficiencies noted during our 1985 review.
Specifically, we noted that the inspection backlog has been corrected. contains a comment regarding the technical aspects of our review of the program. This concent was discussed with Mr. Godwin and his staff during our exit meeting with him.
Mr. Godwin was advised at the time that a response to these findings would be requested by this office and you may wish to have Mr. Godwin address the Enclosure 1 comment.
Enclosures 2 and 3 are enclosed for your information. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. is a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Woodruff during the review.
'~
Sincerely, (Original signed by J. Nelson Grace)
J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
(See page 2)
Pkhfff03 PDR
I.
Claude Earl Fox, M.D., M.P.H.
2
Enclosures:
1.
Consnents and Recommendations on Technical Aspects of the Alabama Radiation Control Program 2.
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" 3.
Letter to Claude Earl Fox, M.D. from J. Nelson Grace, dated 10/ 3/86 cc w/encls:
James W. Cooper, Director Bureau of Environmental and Health Services Standards Michael G. Cash, Acting Director Division of Environmental Health Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Radiological Health Branch G. Wayner Kerr, Director Office of State Programs NRC Office of State Programs NRC Public Document Room bec: w/encls:
R. L. Woodruff p00cument Control Desk (SP01) i i
G
) (t i
f SGA:RI SGA:RII OSP E
ORA:RII 4r v GWKqrr 9/)4/86 9 "f/86 LErnst RLWood ff:vyg RETrojanowski l
9/p/86
-9/j -/06,
,JS/J-/86 l
N/ //5b l
ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ALABAMA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS Status of Regulations is a Category I Indicator.
The following minor comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The State should adopt regulations to maintain a high degree of compatibility and uniformity with the NRC regulations.
Following our 1985 review, the State proposed changes to the Alabama Radiation Control regulations, of which we received a copy on August 21, 1986.
During our review of these proposed changes, we noted changes that are needed for uniformity as follows:
Rule 420-3-26.02(3)(c)2. should be modified to reflect the "elimiution of exemption for glass enamel frit" wording that wts adopted by NRC on September 11,1964,in10CFR40.13(c)(2)(iv).
Rule 420-3-26.02(3)(c)6. should be modified to reflect the
" clarification of exemption for uranium shielding in shipping containers" wording adopted by NRC on December 24, 1981, in 10 CFR 40.13(c)(6).
Rule 420-3-26.02(4)(b)8. should be modified to reflect " addition of Americium-241 to the exemption for survey instrument calibration 23,1981, in sources" wording )that was adopted by NRC on September 10 CFR 30.15(a)(9 (iii).
Recommendation We recommend that the State revise the above regulations for uniformity as soon as possible.
I.
ENCLOSURE 2 APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF AGREEEMENT 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 two 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.
I 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 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.
i 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 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 procerdings 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.
l l
The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
i l
l 4
l
__