ML20012D980
| ML20012D980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1990 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Mongan M NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003290179 | |
| Download: ML20012D980 (9) | |
Text
.. _
A
\\
UMTED sTATas 8"
a, NUCLEAR REEULATORY COMMISSION O
i 1
wAsmatow. p. c. sous 9
4-e l'-
March 13, 1990 Consnissioner Ms. M. Mary Mongan,h and Human Services Department of Healt 6 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 l
Dear Consnissioner Mongan:
you on February 22, 1990 during our follow-up review of the New Hampshire This is to confirm the discussion Messrs. Lubenau and McGrath held with Agreement State program.
We were pleased to learn that the legislation authorizing the additional i'
staff position for the radioactive materials program was signed by Governor Gregg on February 20. We believe that this step will enable the i
State to now address the deficiencies previously noted regarding the i
program. The State should take steps to fill this position as soon as possible.
We were provided with an updated list of goals and objectives for the i
l radioactive materials section dated February 20,1990(Enclosure 3).
l This list addresses the long-standing program deficiencies which NRC l
has commented on during previous reviews. We had hoped that these r
issues would have been addressed in a more timely fashion, but we I
understand and accept the rationale for the changes to the targeted i
l completion dates.
The State has proposed a target date of December 31, 1990 for revising the State's radiation regulations. The updating of regulations is a l
major undertaking and we believe that the State should establish interim milestones to assure that the process remains on schedule and includes provisions for timely review by NRC for compatibility of the draft changes.
With regard to program management, the Bureau's primary focus has been on develo)ing plans to resolve the problem areas in the program. We believe that tie Bureau now has the resources to implement these plans and that the focus should now be placed on performance of the necessary work.
For example, the inspection backlog has been a long-standing problem. The Bureau has evaluated the problem, knows what is needed to address the l
problem in terins of maintenance inspections and catch-up inspections, and therefore should now begin to eliminate the backlog. The Bureau should also project the licensing case workload for 1990 and monitor staff progress in handling licensing casework in an expeditious manner. Our o
discussions with the staff indicated there are adequate resources to also provide for other assignments, such as the Seabrook exercise, without adversely impacting these plans.
PA 1
9003290279 900313 7
)'
'i I
i 1
l c
l M. Mary Mongan 2
1 The results of our review indicate that the State is in a position to l
correct the present deficiencies as well as maintain other aspects of the program in a satisfactory manner. We consider the February 20,1990 list i
of goals and objectives to be a firm comitment by the State. We-recommend that the staff prepare monthly status reports for your review on how well the plans' objectives are being met. We request that copies i
be furnished to our Regional State Agreements Officer and to me. contains a summary of the follow-up review including coments on technical aspects of the program. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. A second copy of this letter and enclosures is provided for placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public examination. We would appreciate your review of our coments and recomendations and would like to receive confirmation of the Department's intentions to implement its plans and our recomendations.
I' appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the NRC staff during the review.
Sincere e
l f
t n
F.
,h0h 4
C lton Ka erery Director ate Pro ams L
ffice of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated cc: The Honorable Judd Gregg, Governor, State of New Hampshire William Wallace, Director, Division of Public Health John Stanton, Assistant Director, Division of Public Health Diane Tefft, Chief, Bureau of Radiological Health George Iverson, Director, Office of Emergency Management James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC William Russell, Regional Administrator, Region I State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room l-i i
p t
t l
STAFF REPORT AND FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION j
OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM SCOPE OF REVIEW The follow-up review to the 20th regulatory program review meeting with New Hampshire representatives was held during the period February 20-22, 1990. The State was represented by Diane Tefft, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health and John Stanton, Assistant Director, Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment. The NRC was represented by Joel Lubenau, Senior PrNect Manager, State Programs, Office of Governmental and Public Ansirs; Francis Costello, Senior Health i
Physicist, Region I; and John McGrath, Regional State Agreements Officer, Region I.
The purpose of the follow-up review was to evaluate the status of the New Hampshire Agreement State program relative to the issues raised during the lest regular review.
i CONCLUSIONS-The Bureau has received approval for an additional position in the radioactive materials program. That State's fiscal year 1991 begins
+
July 1,1990. The Bureau has the capability to fill this position before'that date and plans to do so. The' State has established firm goals for making program changes in light of comments provided duringthelastreview(enclosure)andshouldbeinapositionto freet all NRC guidelines by the end of 1990.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS NRC COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
?anments and recomendations from NRC's previous review were sent to Dr. William Wallace, Director of Public Health in a letter dated April 10, 1989. The State provided a response dated May 10, 1989 and a supplementary response dated December 18, 1989. The results of the review of the status of the State's responses to NRC comments and recomendations were discussed with the State as reported below.
SUMMARY
DISCUSSION WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVES A summary meeting to present the results of the follow-up review was held on February 22, 1990 with M.- Mary Mongan, Comissioner, Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. William Wallace, and Jack Stanton, Assistant Director, Division of Public Health were also present. The Bureau of Radiological Health was represented by Diane Tefft, Bureau Chief, and Dennis O'Dowd, Radioactive Materials Section Chief. The NRC was represented by Joel Lubenau and John McGrath.
ENCLOSURE 1
^
r3 p
L 2
The following comments and recommendations were made:
1.
$tatus and Compatibility of Regulations The Bureau has established a target date of December 31, 1990 for amending the regulations. We recommend that the Bureau establish interim milestones so that the State can assure that appropriate progress is being made and that the target date will be met.
2.
Management and Administration A.
Until now, the Bureau has been focusing on the establishment of goals and objectives to-address the program deficiencies. Now that additional staff resources will be available, Bureau management needs to focus on getting the job done.
As noted herein, specific milestones should be set for the inspection and licensing programs, for updating the regulations and for development of escalated enforcement procedures. We recommend that periodic reports be prepared by the Bureau Chief for review by the Con.missioner and copies be sent to the Region I State Agreements Officer and the Director, State Programs.
B.
During the last fiscel year, the Bureau's budget for " current expenses" was totally depleted, resulting in the Bureau having to curtail telephone use, mailings, photocopying, the purchase of~ supplies and instrument repairs. We believe that this is an unacceptable practice for a regulatory authority responsible for public health and safety. We recommend that future budgets I
for the Bureau apportion appropriate funds for administrative overhead provide for an alternative source of funding in the event that administrative costs exceed projected levels.
3.
Staffin Level The NRC staff were pleased to learn that the legislb u ve appro o l had been obtained for an additional staff position effective FY 1991 (July 1,1990).
We recommend that this position be filled as soon as possible. Bureau staff indicated it would be possible to find qualified candidates and to fill the position earlier and agreed to initiate steps to do this. This will result in a staffing level of 2.1 FTE solely for radioactive materials which is adequate for the New Hampshire program at this time. There appears to be adequate additional staff resources that can be applied to other program needs such as planning and participating in the Seabrook exercise without impinging upon the radioactive materials program effort.
.m.
. m -.
m a.
.- -=
i i
.1 '.
I A-j j
3 I
\\
4.
Training i
1 We reconnend the current inspector receive additional training to
{
enable independent inspections of Priority 1 and 2 licensees. We j
will assist the State in developing training for this purpose and will be in contact with Ms. Tefft. Additionally, we reconnend the State take maximum advantage of short-term training courses sponsored by NRC for the new staff member.
NRC will fund travel and per diem costs for persons accepted for our training courses, j
5.
Status of Inspection Program l
The current inspection backlog stands at 41. Twenty of these are overdue by more than 50% of their inspection interal, a significant increase from the last review. Three of these are Priority I,17 are Priority II, and 21 are Priority III.
Bureau and NRC staff considered i
this backlog, the number of routine inspections that need to be done to maintain the inspection program, and the staff resources that will-3 l
be available-to the State. We concluded that the backlog for Priorities
~
l 1 and 2 can be eliminated by December 31, 1990 while maintaining the i
routine inspection program.
We reconnend that the Bureau.begin scheduling inspections and in doing so take advantage of geographic proximity of licensees to achieve maximum scheduling and travel l
efficiency. Annual and monthly goals should be set and monthly status reports prepared.
i 6.
Enforcement Procedures In addition to the regulations, the Bureau needs to prepare written escalated enforcement procedures. The Bureau s N 1d establish interim milestones for this project as well.
i 7.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions A.
As part of the follow-up review, selected licensing casework was revieved. Overall, we were pleased with the quality of the work.
Minot cechnical. comments related to improving documentation for terminating licenses were provided to the staff. As part of its overall management of the radioactive materials program Bureau management should )toject the 1990 licensing workload and monitor staff progress in iandling licensing requests in a timely manner.
B.
The Department's in house program for handling radioactive sources was reviewed.
We recommend that the Bureau conduct and document an inventory of the radioactive sources under the Department's control,
-- - - - - - -..,. ~
,,-r
- ~ ~
,-w
-~n--~m-
, - = -
l,L a.
4 perform the necessary leak tests and radiation surveys and assure the sources are appropriately stored, sotured and labelled. The Department may find it advantageous to do this in conjunction with developing a license to cover the Department's use of radioactive materials. Such license should include safety procedures and identify a radiation safety officer.
8.
Inspection Procedures We reviewed selected inspection casework and found, overall, the quality of the reports to be acceptable. We recommend *h State mount an effort to inspect out-of State licensees operating in New Hampshire under reciprocity.
9.
Inspection Reports He were pleased by the quality of the supervisory review of the inspection reports, however, we noted instances where written supervisory questions and comments appeared to be unresolved. We recommend that when supervisory review of reports results in questions or coments to the inspector, resolution of the matters be documented, e.g. by revision of the draft report or subsequent memoranda.
- 10. Independent Measurements We noted that the Bureau's available field survey instrumentation was overdue for calibration. We re enmend the instrumentation be recalibrated promptly.
0 l
[;
(.
APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS"
.l 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 reistive importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two i
categories.
l Categnry I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's sh111ty to protect the public health and sehty.
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 indicators.
Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing or contributing to difficulties in Category I indicators.
l It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following manner.
l-In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the l'
category of each comment made.
If no significent Category I comments are l
provided, this will indicate that the 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 connents are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's l
ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need fo-
)
' nprovement in particular and evaluation, the State' program areas is critical.
If, following receipt i
s response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I consnents, the staff may offer findings of adequacy i
l and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State s l
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. NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives. No significant L
items will be left unresolved over a prol:,nged period.
The Commission will L
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.
i ENCLOSURE 2
l
/!-
May 10, 1989 i
(Rev. 2/20/90) l BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH l
i RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL SECTION OBJECTIVES NUMBER OBJECTIVES COMPLETION DATE fRIORITY 1
1 1.
Revlee radiation Rules to include Adoption 7/31/90 I
Sections on surety, civil penalties (12/31/90) and Licensing State i
2.
Institute a program for collection 7/31/89 I
)
of Lt'W surcharge in accordance (7/01/90) l with RSA 125.F:8 and conditions of Rocky Mt. contract.
3.
Complete.all past due license 4/30/90 I
inspections.
(12/31/90) 4.
Maintain licensee inspection ongoing I
schedule 5.
Develop written procedures for 1st draft 11/89(02/90)
I escalated enforcement activities (8/31/90) to include citl1 penalty actions.
6.
Develop docketing procedure for 6/1/90 III l
license applications.
(12/1/90) 1 7.
Complete all backlogged (30 day +
4/30/90 I
following license expiration)
(10/31/90) license application reviews.
I L
8.
Maintain license application review Ongoing I
schedule 9.'
Establish written procedures for 7/1/89 II granting reciprocity.
(4/30/90) 10.
Establish a written protocol for 9/1/90
'III General Licenses to include (On hold) introductory letter, inspection.,etc.
l 11.
Provide training for new section As needed I
staff.
l 12.
Ensure the calibration of all ongoing I
l portable survey instruments used (2x/yr)
L for independent surveys.
l l
l ENCLOSURE 3 J
l
~
/ ~? !
13.
E:sure the leak tcsting cf all BPit ongoing I
Sealed sources.
(2s/yr) 14.
Develop listing of approved Initial list II standard paragraph.
10/31/89 (3/31/90)
Ongoing thereafter 15.
Complete radioactive material 1/1/91-I licensing guides for all types of licenses.
16.
Complete radioactive material 7/31/90 I
license application forms for all types of licenses.
17.
Complete radioactive material 4/1/91 I
inspection forms for all types of licenses.
18.
Revise existing licensing guides.
12/31/90 II-applications, etc. to reference new Rules.
19.
Revise / amend written procedures for 2/1/91 II license inspections.
20.
Update / correct licensee files on 10/1/89 III
.VS100A.
(3/31/90) l l-21.
Perform emergency response duties ongoing I
as necessary.
22.
Develop a training program to 1/1/92 III address the needs of Licensees.
ASSUMPTIONS
- 2. Position #18250 (Wayne) works 2.5 days per week in Red Materials.
- 3. Inspections will be performed at a rate cf approximately 6/ month (3 regular and 3 catch-up) with the esception of June-September due to emergency response responsibilities.
- 4. position #14594 (Don) will not be scheduled to be involved but could assist in an emergency situation.
1
- 5. New HP-I will work 100% in Rad. Material section.
l
- 6. Training for new individual w!11 take approximately 21/2 years before this E
individual will be able to handle all asnects of licensing / inspection.
1 4161
-w.
_\\_____._.,-
-