ML20217H192
| ML20217H192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1999 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Cohen N NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217H198 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9910220073 | |
| Download: ML20217H192 (2) | |
Text
.. . .. . . . . . . . . .. .
-y' October 7, 1999~ j Neal L. Cohen, M.D.
Commissioner New York City Department of Health 125 Worth Street, Room 329 New York, NY 10013 l l
Dear Dr. Cohen:
Thank you for your letter dated August 25,1999, responding to our request for an evaluation j and response to Recommendations 3,5, and 6 of the finalintegrated Materials Performance Evaluation (IMPEP) review report for the New York City Bureau of Radiation Control Program (Recommendations 3,5, and 6 correspond to renumbered Recommendations 1-3 in the l April 1999 follow-up review report). We discussed your response to Recommendation 6, with Mr. Gene Miskin, Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control to clarify the training requirements for the i scientist position. Based on this discussion, we understand that the scientists (license reviewers) all were promoted to that position from the assistant scientist positions, which i requires completion of the core training. Therefore, we understand why additional explanation i of the training requirements above the assistant scientist position was not necessary in the I response. The other questions were on the specific courses being required as core training.
Our discussion with the Bureau Chief clarified course content for one course and the need for consideration of adding two other courses to the core requirements. The Bureau Chief stated that he is considering making some changes to the list of core courses. With these proposed changes and additional understanding, we find your responses adequate. We will review the status of these actions during the next periodic meeting with New York City, Bureau of Radiation Control staff and during the routine IMPEP review.
We appreciate the positive actions that you and your staff have taken and are continuing to implement with regard to our comments. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.
Sincerely, OriginalSignedBy PAUL H. LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs J
Distribution:
EDO RF (G19990446) DCD (SP05) f)
DIR RF (9G446) PDR (YES/)
SDroggitis NY City DOH File
- See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: G:tDMStack99fu.nyc T* receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy a /) [
OFFICE ! OSP RI:RSAO OSP OSP:DD OS$g NAME DSollenberger:kk/gd DWhite KSchneider FCCombs PHLohkl$
DATE 09/30/99* 09/24/99* 09/30/99* 10/01/99* 10/ //99 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-251 9910220073 991007 PDR STPRO ESGNY PDR 74 h h OhW hf ;
f . .
Neal L. Cohen, M.D. '
Commissioner New York City Department of Health 4
- 125 Worth Street, Room 329 New York, NY 10013
Dear Dr. Cohen:
.Thank you for your letter dated August 25,1999, responding to'our request for an evaluation and response to Recommendations 1 through 3 of the final report (Recommendations 3,5, and 6 of the final routine integrated Materials Performance Evaluation (IMPEP) review report) on the April 1999 follow-up IMPEP review of the New York City Bureau of Radiation Control Program. ,
' Your response to Recommendation 3 (6 as referred to in your letter) raised a few questions on the qualifications program that were discussed with Mr. Gene Miskin, Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control. Based on this discussion, we understand that the scientists (license i reviewers) all came to their positions through the assistant scientist positions, which requires j the core training. Therefore, additional explanation above assistant scientist was not necessary in the response. The other questions were on the specific courses being required. This issue was discussed with the Bureau Chief and he is considering making some changes to the list of core courses. With these changes and additional understanding, we find your responses 1 adequate. '
Based on the direction of the Management Review Board, we plan to complete the next full IMPEP review of the New York Agreement in four years from the last routine review. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will review the status of these actions during the next periodic meeting with New York City, Bureau of Radiation Control staff and during the routine IMPEP review.
We appreciate the positive actions that you and your staff have taken and are continuing to implement with regard to our comments. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
EDO RF (G19990446)
DlR RF (9G446) DCD (SP05)
SDroggitis PDR (YES_f__ NO )
NY City DOH File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\
Ta receive a cop r of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure *E' = Copy with attach ent/ enclosure *N* = No copy OFFICE ' OSPn.d@l RI:RSAO l ospar l [ClSif:DD [ OSP:D l NAME DSollenberMi kk- DWhite tw M KSchneidEr ' FCQMbs PHLohaus DATE 09/4299 03/pl/99 '//A/99 %] /99 /99 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-20-1 I
. . _ . _ . .