ML20236C461
| ML20236C461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/26/1987 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Donovan R IDAHO, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710270200 | |
| Download: ML20236C461 (3) | |
Text
_ _ - _
- 3 1
p m
x y
' UNITED STATES f; )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j?
y'
' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 i
j
!007 2 6 1987 Ih 3g o
, p,
- s
.Mr.LRichard P.LDonovan, Director Department of Health and Welfare
,9
'450 West' State W
-Boisei Idaho' 83720 I
j
Dear Mr. Donovan:
.This confims the' discussion Mr. Ralph S. Heyer held with Mr. ChaHes Moss,
]
Ms. Chery1'Koshuta.and Mr. Mark Torf on July 24, 1987, following our review of i
the Idaho Radiation contro1Eprogram and the discussion Mr. Robert Doda held by.
i
' telephone.on September 10, 1987 with Mr Torf.
Asl a result'of our review,Lwe.were able to offer a finding of adequacy and j
. compatibility of the program..0ur finding of compatibility is based upon our L understanding that (1) the updating of the Idaho Radiation Control Regul.ations
'is~in:the final-stages and the revised regulations are anticipated to be promul-.
f Lgated in October 1987, and (2) the State will soon. initiate additional i
amendments to include the Se 23, 1981 NRC4 amendment to 10 CFR Part 30
'(Am-241 calibration sources)ptember and the November 30, 1981 amendment to 10 CFR
- Part20(surveys). These amendments were~ inadvertently overlooked by NRC'and the State. Adoption of them will be needed to maintain compatibility. (Jpon
)
formal promulgation cT the present revision'. please inform the Region'IV State AgreementsL 0fficer of the effective date..During the exit meeting, Mr. Heyer discussed the.need to develop escalated enforcement procedures and the importance of-having these procedures available to the radiation control program staff. We encourage the development of these formal written procedures.
Following our review, the State Radiological Health Officer and the radioactive materials Senior' Radiation Physicist resigned and accepted positions outside the State. As a result, there is no full time staff qualified and experienced in radioactive materials regulation at this time.
It is our understanding, based upon telephone discussions between Mr. Torf and Mr. Doda on September 29, 1987, that'the State.is taking accelerated action to fill these vacancies and in the' interim, technical support will be provided by the other Senior Radiation Physicist and technical assistance will be available from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) for emergency response. This situation deserves your close attention. Our Regional Office plans to closely follow developments.
We appreciate being kept infomed on a timely basis of the results of your efforts to fill these vacancies and would like confirmation of our understanding of the interim arrangements with INEL for emergency response and the use of consultants for other program needs. We are prepared to offer limited
-technical assistance and priority training when staff replacements become available.
An explanation of our po'icies and practices for reviewing Agreement State pro-I grams is attached as Enclosure 1. is a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for public review.
(
I 8710270200 g26hDR-1 PDR STPRQ l
, Im.
l Richard P. Donovan eSO. /
l-l p
.On April 12, 1987, NRC reorganized its staff. The State Agreement Program is i
now a part of the new Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reports.
to the Comission. 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 program. We encourage you'and your staff to continue to look to the Regional Administrator and his staff as the primary contact with NRC.
-I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to Mr. Heyer during the review meeting.-
Sincerely, Carlton Kamerer, Director l
State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
As stated i
cc w/encls:
Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC Mr. Charles Moss,- Deputy Director Department of Health and Welfare Ms. Cheryl Koshuta, Bureau Chief Bureau of Hazardous Materials Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room i
bec:
Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers C. C. Kammerer, SLITP R. L. Bangart D. A. Nussbaumer, SLITP J. T. Gilliland D. M. Sollenberger, NMSS W. L. Brown W. L. Fisher R. J. Doda R. S. Heyer f
9
- N,/ Dq "I. F. Sanborn Colorado File G
J DMBif(SR01) m P
-t N
SLIT h SRSHeyer:jc RJDoda RDMartin ANussbaumer CKamerer I)(3tello i
@ /t(/ 7
\\C/\\T/87 10/5/87 (oaf /87
( / Q]87 yllp)(27
i
?
l i
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review l
of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were published in the Federal Register en 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' 1
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 t
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 q
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 and is compatibile with the NRC's program.
If one or more
,significant Category I coments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the l
public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program i
areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response i
appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I 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 additiona information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the saff 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, i
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The r
Comission will be ifnormed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreements 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 l
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 proceeding to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Act.
l I
u