ML20248G799
| ML20248G799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/28/1989 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Cobb A MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910110034 | |
| Download: ML20248G799 (6) | |
Text
_-
L' AJRC ~PD2-9+ * %'o.
[ UNITED STATES "g
'[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -
.. o
~?
September 28,.1989-Alton B. Cobb, M.D.
State Health Officer State Board of Health Felix J. Underwood State Board of Health Building P. O. Box 1700 Jackson, MS 39205 Dear Dr. Cobbi
.This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, NRC State Agreements Officer, held on August 4,1989 with you and Messrs. Joe Brown, and Eddie S. Fuente following our review and evaluation of the State's radi8 tion cor. trol program.
As a result of our review of the State's program and th'e routine. exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of J
Mississippi, the staff detennined that overell the Mississippi program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 1. contains comments 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 Mr. Fuente address the Enclosure 2 comments. We are enclosing a second copy of. this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public view.
As we discussed, we appreciate your continued support of the Division of Radiological Health and their regulatory efforts to protect public health and safety. We also appreciate your cooperation with this office and the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Woodruff during the review.
j S cerely, M
o>w i
ecg Carlton Kammerer, Director os State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs 7"
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs o
Enclosures:
E$
1.
Application of NRC Guidelines M
2.
Summary of Assessment and Comments 4
l cc:
(See page 2)
b Alton B. Cobb 2
SEP 2 81993 cc:
J. M Taylor, Acting Executive Director for Operations S. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region II Eddie S. Fuente, Director Division of Radiological Health State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room
ENCLOSURE 1 i
APPLICATION OF "6UIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" q
The " Guideline's for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as en 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 ability to' protect the public health and safety.
If significant problems exist in one or faore Category 1 ir.dicator 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 t' e principal program areas, i.e., those that fall under Category I h
indicators.
Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing or contributing to difficulties in Category I indicatorst 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 comments are provided, this will indicate that th'e program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant Category I comments 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 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 comments, 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 special limited review.
l 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 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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
ENCLOSURE 2
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS MISSISSIPPI RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD JUNE'19, 1987 TO AUGUST 4, 1989 Scope of Review This program review was conducted in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreenent State Programs published in the Federal _ Register on June 4,'1987, and the internal procedures established b;y the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs, State Agreements Program. The review included discussions with program management and staff. technical evaluation of selected license files and compliance files (ct.sework),
and the evaluation Of the State's response to an NRC questi6nnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
The 26th regulatory program review meeting with Mississippi representatives was held during the period of July 31 - August 4,1989 in Jackson, Mississippi. The State was represented by Eddie S. Fuente, Director, Division of Radiological Health and Robert W. Goff, Health Physicist. A review of selected license and inspection files was conducted by Richard L. Woodruff on August 1-4, 1989. A summary meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was held with the State Health Officer, Dr. Alton B. Cobb on August 4,1989.
EajusofPreviousNRCCommentsandRecommendations Comments and recommendations from NRC's previous reviews were sent to the State in a letter dated July 21, 1987. All of the comments were satisfactorily resolved during our visit on September 19-21, 1988.
Current Review Comments and Recommendations All 29 indicators were reviewed in depth and the State fully satisfies the guidelines in 25 of these indicators. Sper.ific comments and recommendations for the four remaining indicators are as follows:
-I.-
Managenent and Administration Administrative procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment Files should be maintained in a fashion to allow for fast, accurate retrieval of information. The State uses a filing system where " backup" l
information from the licensing process, licensee correspondence, and Iu_-_-___
(
l.
2 inspection reports are filed together on one. side of the file
. fol der. This practice results in less efficient retrieval of information from the files.. Alternative methods' for organization of file folders were discussed with program staff.
Recommendation l
We recommend that the license file folders be reorganized to allow l
for more efficient retrieval of information.
II. Licensing Licensing Procedures is e Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
l l
- Comment, The State has a policy of amending licenses in their " entirety" every five years which is consistent with NRC practice. However, three of the licenses sampled had not been amended in their entirety since 1980, 1981, and 1982, respectively. Program staff related that staff turnovers and training of personnel contributed to the backlog.
Recommendation We recommend that the State identify all licenses that are in need of " entirety" amendments and establish a schedule for these amendments based upon license category and priority.
III. Compliance A.
Inspection Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment Based upon file reviews and discussions with program staff, posting of " Notices to Employees" is a comon citation found during " initial" inspections. Options available to the Program for compliance in this area were discussed. One option that has been effective in other States is the hand delivery of all new licenses. This allows the Program Representative to discuss with the licensee all license conditions, regulatory requirements, (posting, training, etc.), and to evaluate the licensee's facility, engineering controls, and safety procedures prior to the initial use of licensed materials.
T
(
y.
'3 Recommendations
. e recommend ~that an inspect. ion policy be adopted that would W
require the hand delivery of all-new licenses issued by the, State.
B.
Inspection Reports is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with'our recommendation is made.
Comment Inspection reports should document specific results of inspections and items of noncomp1iance in terms of answers to questions (who, when, why, where, and what). Several reports needed additional information to fully document the findings such as, who performed the instrument calibration or when a source was received and due for leak testing.
Recommendations It was recomended that additional information be included in the inspection reports to fully document items of noncompliance and results of the inspection.
Summary Discussions with State Representatives A sumary meeting with the State Health Officer Dr. Alton B. Cobb; Mr.- Joe Brown, Director, Bureau of Environmental Health; and Mr. Eddie S. Fuente. Director, Division of Radiological Health was held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, August' 4,1989.
In general, the reviewer discussed the scope of the review and expressed the staff view that the program was adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with NRC's program.
In addition, the State was informed that we were pleased with the State Health Officer's support of the Radiation Control Program to obtain salary upgrades for staff managers, training for personnel, and we appreciated the State's cooperation and support to NRC.
In response, to our coments, Dr. Cobb related that he was pleased with the good report and that he would continue to support the program.
The close-out meeting with the RCP technical staff was also conducted on Friday morning, August 4,1989, following the exit meeting with Dr. Cobb. The State was represented by Eddie S. Fuente, Director; Robert W. Goff, Materials Branch Supervisor; and Jonathan Barlow, Senior Health Physicist. The review guideline questions and the State's responses were discussed and the results of the casework were reviewed in detail. Copies of the casework reviews were provided to the staff for reference. All comments from the review appeared to be resolved and Mr. Fuente related that he would respond to our comments as appropriate.
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _