ML20215G962
| ML20215G962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1987 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Fox C ALABAMA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706230459 | |
| Download: ML20215G962 (6) | |
Text
._
G/,
d#"%
UNITED STATES c
ge _
t.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
g j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
- a t\\..... p JtlN 1 8 E Claude Ear 1~ Fox, M.D., M.P.H.
State Health Officer State Department of Public Health j
State Office Building
]
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Dear Dr. Fox:
i This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, NRC State Agreements Representative, held on May 1, 1987, with you and Messrs. slames V. Cooper, Michael G. Cash, and Aubrey V. Godwin following our review and evaluation of the State's Radiation Control Program.
i As a result of our review of the State's program and the rxtine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Comission 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.
We were pleased to find that the State has corrected the deficiencies j
noted during our 1985 review.
In particular we noted that backlog of j
overdue inspections has been eliminated. contains comments regarding the technical aspects'of our review of the program. These comments were discussed with Mr. Godwin 1
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 comments.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 2.
Also,' a copy of this letter is included for placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
On April 12, 1987, NRC. reorganized its staff. The State Agreement Program is now a part of the new Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reports to the Commission. One purpose of this organizational change was to provide an improved focus for NRC relationships with the States.. Our regional offices will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory programs. We encourage you and your staff to continue to look to the Regional Administrator and his staff as the primary contact with NRC.
8706230459 870618' 1
PDR STPRG ESG %
}
L g
Claude Earl Fox, M.D.
2 I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Woodruff during the review.
(
l Sincerely, l
Ob bm 4 s rdritor, Kamerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
1.
Coments and Recommendations
-2.
Application of Guidelines cc w/ enc 1s:
-4 Chairman Zech I
Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Carr Victor Stello, Executive Director
)
for Operations, NRC j
J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, RII Jnes W. Cooper, Director Bureau of Environmental and Health Services Standards Michael G. Cash, Director Division of Environmental Health Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Radiological Health Branch NRC Public Document Room
.t g
ENCLOSURE-1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ALABAMA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I.
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS j
Status of Regulations is a Category 1 Indicator. The following minor-comment with our reconinendation is made.
Coment The State should adopt regulations to maintain a high degree of l
compatibility and uniformity with the NRC regulations.
j A.
The State proposed changes to the Alabama Radiation Control Regulations in August of 1986 that became effective on December 31 1986. Due to administrative constraints of the rule adoption process, the State was unable to adopt'certain' minor changes as recommended by NRC in a comment letter dated October 3, 1986. These changes were as follows:
Rule 420-3-26.02(3)(c)2. should be modified to reflect the " elimination of exemption for glass enamel frit" wording that was adopted by NRC on September 11, 1984, in 10CFR40.13(c)(2)(iv).
Rule 420-3-26.02(3)(c)6. should be modified to reflect j
the " clarification of exemption for uranium shielding in NRC.on shipping containers" wording adopted b 24, 1981, in 10 CFR 40.13(c)(y).
December 6
Rule 420-3-26.02(4)(6)8.- should be modified to reflect
" addition of Americium-241 to the exemption for survey.
23,1981,in10CFR30.15(a)(9)(pted instrument calibration sources" wording that was ado iii).
by NRC on September B.
We received a draft copy of proposed regulations that addresses the April 1, 1987 NRC rule changes to 10 CFR-Part 35, and a copy of the State's proposed Radiation Control Act changes to adopt civil penalty provisions. As discussed,
.we will provide comments on these proposed regulations ~ to Mr.
i Godwin by June 30, 1987.
j Reconsnendation We recommend that the State revise the radiation con' trol regulations'as discussed in paragraph A. above, as soon as possible.
o 2
l II. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Administrative Procedures.is a Category II Indicator. The 1
following comment with our recommendation is made..-
l I
Coment The Radiation Control Program should establish written internal procedures to assure that the staff performs its-duties as required and to provide a.high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices for functions required of. the program.- Key infomation addressing licensing and enforcement. issues are sent to the State as "All Agreement State" letters to enhance regulatory uniformity and continuity.
It was noted that some of these
" letters are maintained by staff members in the Compliance Section, and some by.the Licensing Section. Si_nce many of these
" letters" are applicable to both Sections, it would appear that.
these letters should be incorporated into the Radiological Health Branch file system, thus more readily available to all staff members.-
Recommendation.
We recommend that the internal procedures be revised to incorporate.
the All Agreement State letters into the Radiological Health Branch-file system.
q III. COMPLIANCE Inspection Reports is a Category II Indicator. The following comment is made with our recommendation.
i Comment Reports should uniformly and adequately document the result of inspections including confirmatory measurements..
A.
The State revised the Medical Inspection Report form in.
September 1986.
It was.noted that the new fom does not provide for (1) identification of the equipment used for confirmatory or independent measurements, or (2)^al determination of the need for bioassays.
B.
More documentation was needed in some reports'tol(1) record-
)
air flow rates measured with velometers at hoods and exhaust-vents, (2) record locations were smears were taken and the results, and (3) record results of-gamma' radiation surveysi performed on radiographic devices.
q 1
4
's-j l
i n.
i 3
j l
Recommendation We recomend that inspection repo'rts be revised to include the following information:
A.
Medical Inspection fonns should identify the survey equipment used by the inspector.during the inspection and document q
whether or not bioassays.were being performed, and if not, whether or not bioassays were considered necessary.
B.
Additional documentation of inspection-findings is needed regarding:
'i (1) air flow measurements;
.(2) locations where confirmatory smears were taken; and'
(
(3) results of surveys performed around radiographic devices.
j i
1 l
1
.)
7 i
ENCLOSURE 2 j
APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control 1
Programs," were published in the Federal: Register on June 4, 1987'as an NRC Policy Statement.. The Guide provides 29 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 one or more; Category. I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
Category II; indicators address program functions which provide-essential q
technical and administrative support for the primary program functions..
Good performance in meeting the guidelines.for these indicators.is j
essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one.or more of the principal program areas, i.e. those that fa11' under Category I J
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 e
indicate the category of each consnent made.
If no significant~ Category j
I comments are provided, this will. indicate that the program is adequate 1'J to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant; Category I consnents are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously-affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and 1
that the need of improvement 'in particular. program areas is critical' I
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category 1 comments, the _
i staff may offer findings of. adequacy.and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions!are examined and.their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review.- If additional information is needed to' evaluate the'$ tate's. actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special,' limited review. NRC staff may hold a-special i
meeting with appropriate State representatives. No significant' items will.be 'left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Commission will be-informed of the results of the' reviews of the individual' Agreement State-programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will.be i
placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not-1 improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a' staff finding that the. program is not adequate will be-considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke j
all or part of the Agreement in accordance with section 274j.or the Act.
i l