ML20247N524
| ML20247N524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/19/1989 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Fox C ALABAMA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909260232 | |
| Download: ML20247N524 (6) | |
Text
_ _ __ _
j
. [sS MC jo
- UNITED STATES
' g'
~ f/-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
&,I 7 i-WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s
g,.
e-September 19, 1.989 Claude Earl Fcx,. M.D.. M.P.H.
State Health Officer State Department of Public Health State Office Building Montgomery, AL. 36130
Dear Dr. Fox:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, NRC State Agreements Officer, held on July 5,1989, with you and Messrs. Michael G. Cash and Aubrey V. Godwin following our 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.
However, a statement of compatibility will be postponed until the proposed amendments to the Alabama Radiation Control Regulations become effective.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I Indicator.
For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but~ no later than three years. On July 16, 1986, the NRC regulations on Industrial Radiography (10 CFR 34) were amended and this amendment is a matter of compatibility. During the review, we received a copy of the State's proposed changes to the Radiation Control Regulations and we will provide our coments on these proposed changes under a separate letter.
We request that the State keep our Region II office informed of the status of your proposed rules and the date when the rules become effective.
Staffing Level is a Category II Indicatw. The program's technical staffing level should be approximately 1.0 to 1.5 person-years per 100 licenses. The Materials Licensing and Compliance Sections have only four persons and the Program Director for 478 licensees, or a staffing level of approximately 0.9 person-year per 100 licenses. Also, the Licensing Section has only one person to review license applications and amendments, We recommend that the staffing
-level be increased to the recommended 1.0 to 1.6 person-years per 100 licenses and additional support be provided to the Licensing Section.
An explaratior, of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 1. contains a summary of the staff assessments and coments that were developed from the other indicators used for review of the program. These comments were 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 rcquested by this office and you may wish to have Mr. Godwin address tne Enclosure 2 comments and recommendations. A copy of this letter and the enclosures is provided for placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be ma Q available for public examination.
8909260232 890919 O
PDR STPRC ESG
)
L, Claude Earl Fox, M.D., M.P.H.
2 SEP 191989 As we discussed, it is-important for the Department to initiate prompt action to update your Radiation Control Program regulations.
I also urge that high priority be given to assuring sufficient staff is available for the program.
Our experience has been that low staffing level is often a precursor to serious problems in the State programs.
We wish to comend the Depart:aent on its program of holding workshops for medical licensees and consultants following the State's adoption of new regulations for medical uses of radioactive materials.
This is an excellent initiative which we believe will be beneficial to both the regulated community and the Department.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to our representative during the review.
I am looking forward to your coments regarding regulations and staffing level, and your staff responses to the recommendations.
Sincerely,
&W sened by Vandy L Mmer
/L/
C riton Kamerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
1.
Application of NRC Guidelines 2.
Summary of Assessments and Comments cc/w enclosures:
Distribution J. Taylor, Acting Executive Director SA RF RWoodruff, RII for Operations, NRC Dir RF RTrojanowski,RII S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, HDenton SDroggitis Region II CKammerer A. Godwin, Director, Radiological SSchwartz Health Branch, Alabama Department VMiller of Public Health Alabama State File NRC Public Document Room DCD (SP01)
State Public Document Room EDO RF bec: Chairman Carr Commissioner Rpberts Commissioner Rogers
/
Commissioner Curtiss
/
.V e
t
?.
r JFC :Rll:5A0
- Rll:DRSP" :~TRA
- 5LITP ITP:D :G K o_..:............:.... b. W M d *,
h/,Q..:.PA..g... :....kl f
- EDO T
hfartz:HDh[nton: JTayf or VAME :RWogdrluff
- JStohr
- SEbnete
- YMil
- CKammerer:
.....:...p/89
...._..:.....p..___.....
p.:.. 7...:...f....:d/./89: f/ O /89 SATE :8/ w
- 8/
/89 :8/
/89 :8/// /89 :8/.M89 : / 5 /89 :
C OFFICIAL REC 6RD COPY
,b
ENCLOSURE 1 APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF 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 I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's at,ility 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 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 onder 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.
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 signiacant Category I coments are provided, this will indicate that the progran.s adequate 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, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need for 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 confimed 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 perfom a special limited review. NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives. No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Comission will be informed 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 havt. 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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
1 l
l ENCLOSURE 2
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW AND CON 4ENTS ALABAMA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD' MAY 1, 1987 TO JULY 5, 1989 Scope of Review:
This program review was conducted in accordance with " Guidelines" published on June 4,1987, and the internal procedtres established by the Governmental and Public Affairs Office, State Agreements Program. The review included inspector accompaniments, discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license files and compliance files (casework), and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
This review was the 19th regulatory program review and was held during the period June 6-9, 1989 in Montgomery, Alabama.
The State was represented by Aubrey V. Godwin, Director, Radiation Control Program; Kirksey E. Whatley, Chief. Materials Licensing Section; and James L. McNees, Chief, Materials Compliance Section.
A review of selected license files and compliance files was conducted by R. L. Woodruff, Region II, during the period June 6-9, 1989.
Inspector accompaniments were performed on May 2,1989.
A sunnery meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was held on July 5,1989 with Dr. Claude Earl Fox, State Health Officer; Michael G. Cash, Director, Division of Environmental Health; and Aubrey V. Godwin.
==
Conclusion:==
The Alabama program for the control of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
However, a finding of compatibility is being postponed until the State's proposed revisions to the Alabana Radiation Control Regulations become effective.
Status of Previous NRC Comments and Recommendations Comments and recommendations from NRC's previous review were sent to the State in a letter dated June 18, 1987. All of these comments were resolved.
Current Review Comments and Recommendations All 29 indicators were reviewed in depth and the State fully satisfies the guidelines in 23 of these indicators. Two indicators were discussed in the cover letter, and specific comments and recommendations for the remaining four indicators are as follows:
v 2
c i
l I.
Personnel Training is a Category II indicator.
The following comment with our a
recommendation is made.
Comment:
)
i The State essentially meets 'the NRC guidelines in this program indicator; however, this comment is intended to enhance the effectiveness of the State's training program.
New employees should be provided with a documented training and evaluation schedule that outlines specified assignments.to be performed.
The schedule should begin with orientation l
and progress through more difficult assignments including inspections of specific types of licenses or safety evaluations of license applications.
The schedule should also provide for periodic review by management and include attendance at training courses.
1 Recommendation:
]
We recommend that the Radiation Control Program Director develop and implenent a training and evaluation program for all new employees.
II. Licensing Licensing procedures is a Category II indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is made.
1 Comment:
The program should have internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current practice.
The State developed a Radioisotope Radiation Safety Procedures Manual (Guide) for use by medical licensees and applicants. This guide needs to be updated to reference the 1988 rule changes adopted by the State.
Recommendation We recommend that the Radioisotope Radiation Safety Procedures Manual be updated to conform with current State regulations.
III. Compliance A.
Inspection reports is a Crtegory II i-'d'cator.
The following comment with our recommendation is made.
p.: u
)
, t.
e p.-
l Canment' Inspection reports should document the independent physical measurements-made by the inspector including the identification of the instrument used to perfom the measurement. It was noted that four out of 15 files selected for review did not properly identify the survey instrument used R
by the inspector. This'also is relative to a comment that was made during our 1987 review.
Reconsnendation We reconmend that inspectio1 report foms be revised as needed and instructions given to inspectors to assure proper identification of the survey instrumentation used during inspectit,ns.
B.
Confirmatory Measurements is a Category II indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.-
Connent Instrument-calibration services should be appropriate for the instrumentation used. -
The State perfoms their own instrument calibrations using a cesium-137 calibrator.
The staff stated that the maximum output was 1500 millirems at six inches from the calibrator port. This raises questions concerning the calibration of the high range ion chamber instruments used by the staff. Also, the instruments were labeled as being calibrated on all ranges.
Several calibration and labeling alternatives were discussed with the staff.
Recommendation We reconmend that the instrument celebration procedures be reevaluated and appropriate steps taken to assure that inspectors have properly calibrated instrumentation.
Sunmary Discussion with State Representatives A sunnary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review meeting was held with Dr. Claude Earl Fox, State Health Officer; Mr. Michael G. Cash, Director, Division of Environmental Health; and Mr. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director, Radiation Control Branch.
The scope of the review was discussed along with the staff comments on Status of Regulations and Staffing Level.
In additinn, the reviewer complimented the State on their response and actions taken following incidents involving the malfunction of a medical device in Mobile, Alabama, and a ruptured well-logging source near Helena, Alabama. Also, Alabama was one of the first States to adopt the new medical regulations and Mr. Whatley conducted a series of six Nuclear Medicine workshops throughout the State for licensees and consultants.
In response to our consents, Dr. Fox related that he was pleased to hear about the positive actions taken by his staff and he would support the hiring of additional staff, and adoption of the revised regulations.
-