ML20203K963
| ML20203K963 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/14/1986 |
| From: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Scott H RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608220286 | |
| Download: ML20203K963 (10) | |
Text
g
/ H %'c,
/
UNITED STATES
! y eg j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- Me j
REGION 1 f.Zf.. j f 631 PARK AVENUE c,% ' Y-
,cf KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 August 14, 1986 H. Denman Scott, M.D., Director Department of Health Cannon Building, Davis Street Providence, Rhode Island 02908
Dear Dr. Scott:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. John McGrath and Ms. Cardelia Maupin held with you on July 17, 1986 following our recent review 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 Rhode Island, the staff believes that the Rhode Island program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program.
During the last review, we commented on the importance of staff back-up for small programs such as the Rhode Island program.
We were pleased to note that action was taken to provide the appropriate back-up.
With the reassignment of one individual to the asbestos program, the need has again risen.
Mr. Hickey has again recognized the problem and has selected an individual for duties in the radioactive materials program.
We recommend that the State continue its efforts to provide back-up for the materials program and we will do what we can to see that appropriate training opportunities are provided.
Since the last review, two positions in the Division of Occupational Health and Radiation Control have been reclassified.
The position titles, Radiation Control Specialist and Health Physics Technician Aide, were eliminated and the positions were reclassified as Industrial Hygienist and Industrial Hygiene Technician.
It is also our understanding that on the occurrence of a vacancy at the Supervising Radiation Control Specialist position, this title may also be eliminated and reclassified as Supervisory Industrial Hygienist.
We believe that industrial hygiene and health physics / radiation control are two separate disciplines which should not be equated for purposes of job classification.
It has been our experience that States have a difficult time recruiting for radia-tion control positions and a job description that does not fully represent the nature of the position will make it even more difficult to recruit appropriate staff. We believe the State should establish a permanent career ladder in health physics / radiation control.
We would appreciate your review of our comments and recommendations and would like to receive your specific plans to address those issues.
contains additional comments regarding the technical aspects of the materials program.
You may wish to have Mr. Hickey address these comments.
l,) O l 860024028 8601-PDR STPRG E 9I<r
,I,I
~.
4 p/
a I
i H. Denman Scott, M.D. ; contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. is a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. McGrath and Ms. Maupin during the review.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
(w/Encls.)
J. Hickey, RI State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room (SP01)-
G. W. Kerr i
i l
l.
N 6
a p._
,,e--
_a-,-
Y ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE RHODE ISLAND RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 1.
EMERGENCY PLANNING Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category I indicator.
The following comment and recommendation is considered minor in nature.
COMMENT Although the State emergency plan has been updated, the plan's radiation section has not been tested.
RECOMMENDATION NRC guidelines recommend that drills be performed periodically to test the effectiveness of the written plan.
2.
TRAINING Training is a Category II indicator.
COMMENT Mr. Cabral, who will be assuming some duties in the radioactive materials i
program, does not have specific training in the materials area.
Mr.
Ferrulo has not attended the NRC sponsored Inspections Procedures course.
RECOMMENDATION We recommend that Mr. Cabral attend the NRC sponsored 5-week course in health physics and the Introduction to Licensing course.
We also recommend that Mr. Ferrulo attend the inspection procedures course.
3.
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Enforcement Procedures is a Category I indicator.
The following minor comment and recommendation is offered for your consideration.
COMMENT We note that the State does not have civil penalty authority.
In the review of one compliance file, a licensee was cited for serious repeat violations.
It was evident that more stringent enforcement action might have been suitable in this case but was not taken.
,1 4
j l 1
i RECOMMENDATION
}
We recommend that the State. consider the institution of civil penalty authority.
Secondly, we believe that the State should consider the use
- ~
of other escalated enforcement options that are available, such as
' enforcement conferences, in cases where serious and/or repeat violations are found, particularly in cases where management appears to have had involvement in the circumstances which led to the violations.
i a
e J
i j
l J
l I
l f
i
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 December 4, 1981 as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 30 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 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 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.
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 coment made.
If no significant Category I ccments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
If at least one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority basis. When more than one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would request an imediate response, and may perform a follow-up review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement.
Category I
II coments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public. The State will be asked to respond to these coments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
![y n%'g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
REGION 1 ENCLOSURE 3 0,
g 631 PARK AVENUE g
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 August 14, 1986 H. Denman Scott, M.D., Director Department of Health Cannon Building, Davis Street Providence, Rhode Island 02908
Dear Dr. Scott:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. John McGrath and Ms. Cardelia Maupin held with you on July 17, 1986 following our recent review 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 Rhode Island, the staff believes that the Rhode Island program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program.
During the last review, we commented on the importance of staff back-up for small programs such as the Rhode Island program.
We were pleased to note that action was taken to provide the appropriate back-up.
With the reassignment of one individual to the asbestos program, the need has again risen.
Mr. Hickey has again recognized the problem and has selected an individual for duties in the radioactive materials program.
We recommend that the State continue its efforts to provide back-up for the materials program and we will do what we can to see that appropriate training opportunities are provided.
Since the last review, two positions in the Division of Occupational Health and Radiation Control have been reclassified.
The position titles, Radiation Control Specialist and Health Physics Technician Aide, were eliminated and the positions were reclassified as Industrial Hygienist and Industrial Hygiene Technician.
It is also our understanding that on the occurrence of a vacancy at the Supervising Radiation Control Specialist position, this title may also be eliminated and reclassified as Supervisory Industrial Hygienist.
We believe that industrial hygiene and health physics / radiation control are two separate disciplines which should not be equated for purposes of job classification.
It has been our experience that States have a difficult time recruiting for radia-tion control positions and a job description that does not fully represent the nature of the position will make it even more difficult to recruit appropriate staff.
We believe the State should establish a permanent career ladder in health physics / radiation control.
We would appreciate your review of our comments and recommendations and would like to receive your specific plans to address those issues.
contains additional comments regarding the technical aspects of the materials program.
You may wish to have Mr. Hickey address these comments.
H. Denman Scott, M.D. Enclosure 2 contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. is a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperatior,you and your staff extended to Mr. McGrath and Ms. Maupin during the review.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
(w/Encis.)
J. Hickey, RI State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room (SP01)
G. W. Kerr
l J
ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE RHODE ISLAND RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 1.
EMERGENCY PLANNING Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category I indicator.
The following comment and recommendation is considered minor in nature.
COMMENT Although the State emergency plan has been updated, the plan's radiation section has not been tested.
RECOMMENDATION NRC guidelines recommend that drills be performed periodically to test the effectiveness of the written plan.
2.
TRAINING Training is a Category II indicator.
COMMENT Mr. Cabral, who will be assuming sonie duties in the radioactive materials program, does not have specific training in the materials area.
Mr.
Ferrulo has not attended the NRC sponsored Inspections Procedures course.
RECOMMENDATION We recommend that Mr. Cabral attend the NRC sponsored 5-week course in health physics and the Introduction to Licensing course.
We also recommend that Mr. Ferrulo attend the inspection procedures course.
3.
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Enforcement Procedures is a Category I indicator.
The following minor comment and recommendation is offered for your consideration.
COMMENT We note that the State does not have civil penalty authority.
In the review of one compliance file, a licensee was cited for serious repeat violations.
It was evident that more stringent enforcement action might have been suitable in this case but was not taken.
9 2-l RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the State consider the institution of civil penalty authority.
Secondly, we believe that the State should consider the use I
of other escalated enforcement options that are available, such as enforcement conferences, in cases where serious and/or repeat violations are found, particularly in cases where management appears to have had involvement in the circumstances which led to the violations.
1 I
i i
W 6
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 December 4,1981 as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 30 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 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 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 f all under Category I indicators. Category 11 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 In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will warner.
indicate the category of each comment made.
If no significant Category I ccnnents are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
If at least one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority basis. When more than one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would request an immediate response, and may perform a follow-up review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement. Category 11 cor.nents wculd concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public. The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
.