ML20235W643
| ML20235W643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/21/1987 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Cobb A MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707230628 | |
| Download: ML20235W643 (5) | |
Text
7
~
M[) j t
$4 4
UNITED STATES y-
-t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
[
WASHINGTON, D. C. 205$5 a-
,,,, p#
M ti W Alton B.. Cobb', M.D..' State Health 0fficer State Board of Health Felix J. Underwood State Board of Health Building P. O. Box 1700 Jackson, MS 39205
Dear Dr. Cobb:
This,is to confirm tho discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, HRC State Agreement Representative held on June 19, 1987, with you and Messrs. Bobby G. Redding and Eddie S. Fuente following our review and evaluation of the State's Radiation Control program.
We were pleased to find that the State has corrected the deficiencies noted during our 1985 review.
In particular, we noted that the backlog of overdue inspections has been eliminated.
As a result of our review of the State's program and.the routine exchange of information between the !!uclear Regulatory Comission and the State of Mississippi, the staff determined that overall, the Mississippi program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Comission's program. contains coments regarding the technical aspects of our review of the program. These comments were discussed with Mr. Fuente and his staff during our exit meeting with him. Mr. Fuente was advised at the time that a response to these findings would be requested by this office and you may wish' to have tir. Fuente 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 i'
Affairs, which reports to the Comission. One purpose of this organization 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.
I \\
N D
E
o
. [
f..
g i
f'.)
Alton B. Cobb, M.D.
2 I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extanded by your staff to l
Mr. Woodruff during the review.
Sincerely, 6
ton Kamme r, Director
(
l State, Local and Indian
{
Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
1.
Coments and Recommendations i
2.
Application of Guidelines cc w/encls:
Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, RII Bobby Redding, Assistant Director Bureau of Environmental Health Eddie S. Fuente Director Division of Radiological Health NRC Public Document Room 1
l l
q f-ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF TKE MISSISSIPPI RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I.
LICENSING Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
COMMENT Standard license conditions and procedures comparable with those of the NRC should be used to expedite and provide uniformity in the licensing process, 1.
The standard " user" condition which Mississippi uses for
" private practitioners" stipulates that "... material shall be used by, or under the supervision of (the individual physician)." The phrase "...under the supervision of..."
should not be used for private practitioner licenses. The NRC practice is to limit the use of material to named physicians since private practitioners are not authorized to train other physicians.
2.
Thyroid bioassays for iodine-131 appeared to be called for in two licenses, due to the amounts, form, and authorized use; however, the license document did not clearly establish "under what conditions" bioassays'would be performed.
RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the State utilize the following procedures:
4 1.
Licenses issued to individual physicians or practitioners should clearly indicate that the material is to be used only 1
by the physician named on the license.
j 2.
The license should clearly document when bioessays are to be performed, either by a specific license condition or by l
reference to the application.
II.
COMPLIANCE Inspection Reports is a Category II Indicator. The following connent is made with our recommendation.
)
COMMENT 1
Findings of inspections should be documented in a report i
substantiating all items of noncompliance, and indir.ating the i
substance of discussions with licensee management and the licensee's response, and adequately document all confirmatory measurements.
l i
l
L-2 k
1.
One licensee was issued a " recommendation" for what appeared to be a regulation violation. Additional information was needed in the report to document why the citation was detemined to be a " recommendation".
]
l 2.
More information was needed in one report to identify the specific deficiencies that were documented and cited as
" incomplete" shipping papers.
3.
The topics discussed during the exit meeting and management's response were not properly documented in two reports.
4.
In one report, the instrument used for confirmatory measurements was not identified.
RECOMMENDATION We recommend that steps be taken to assure that inspection reports:
1.
Fully substantiate all citations.
2.
Specifically identify and describe all deficiencies.
3.
Document all items discussed during the exit meetings and management's response to those findings.
4.
Specifically identify all instrumentation used for confirmatory or independent measurements.
__m_._______._
~
d ENCLOSURE 2 APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control 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 two categories.
Category 1 indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the pud 11c 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 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 j
indicators. Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify I
underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties l
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 comment made.
If no significant Category I I
coments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate i
to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant Category I coments are provided, i
the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously I
affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I coments, the 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 State'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 meeting with appropriate State representatives. No significant items l
will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Comission 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 placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not 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 all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Act.