ML20028G980
| ML20028G980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/27/1990 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Mitzelfelt R NEW MEXICO, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010050031 | |
| Download: ML20028G980 (9) | |
Text
.
L 's.
)
'q uni f ED STATES
['
I,'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C 20$55 J
k..... /p September 27, 1990 J
i Mr. Richard Mitzelfelt. Director Environmental Improvement Division Department of Health and Environment 1190 St. Francis Drive Santa Fe, NM 87503
Dear Mr. Mitzelfelt:
This confirms the discussion Robert J. Doda held with you, Jon Thompson, i
Deputy Director, and Jack E11vinger and Bill Floyd of the Cemunity Services Bureau on August 17 1990, in Santa Fe, following our 1990 review of the New Mexico 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 (NRC) and the State of New Mexico, the staff determined that the New Mexico radiation control program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequete to protect tae public health and safety. However, a finding that the program is compatible with the Comission's program could not be made due to three regulatory requirements which have not been l
adopted within the three-year period allowed by the NRC: (1) bankruptcy notification, (2) quarterly audit of the performance of radiographers,
=and (3) Well logging requirements. The Division should take steps to adopt these amendments at an early date.
Ovtrall, there has been broad improvement in the New Mexico radiation i
control program when compared to previous reviews. The Bureau has an adequate number of staff members performing agreement materials work,
~
and there has been less turnover of key staff members during the review period.
We wish to commend the Community Services Bureau for their efforts in completing 219 Inspections during the current review period with the result that the Bureau has, according to NRC criteria, only 4 overdue inspections of the more significant State licenses et the present time.
The Bureau has also availed itself of many trae.ing courses for its staff during the review period, with the res'nt that the radiation control staff is well trained in the far-tr.nging requirements of an agreement materials program at the presen'c time.
. contains our sumary of assiessments regarding the program.
In addition tc the comment and recossendation regarding the lack of fully compatit,le regulations, three other minor coments and recommendations are included regarding other aspects of the program.
These were discussed with J. E11vinger and B. Floyd during the week of' the review. We would like to receive your responses to our recomendations for program improvement, k0$N Ih c
9 m
e----e-e e-
i' l
SEP 2 71990 j
Richard Mitzelfelt
-2 i
Our review disclosed that all other program indicators were within NRC l
guidelines. Also, a number of other technical matters were discussed with the radiation control staff and resolved during the course of the l
l review meeting. An explanation of our policies and practices for i
reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 2.
1 appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to l
l Nr. Doda during the review meeting. Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be i
made available for review.
i erely, m
Carlton Kammerer, Director State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs 1
Enclosures:
As stated I
cc:
J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for 0)erations R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator, TIY l
J. E11vinger, Chief Comunity Services Bureau, NMEID l
State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room l
State Public Document Room i
i
(
l t
o l
i SEP 171990 Letter to Mr. Richard Mitzelfelt
-3 bcc:
Chairman Carr Cons. Rogers Com. Curtis Cor.. Remick t
Distribution i
5A RF Dir RF HRDenton CKarinerer YMiller FCombs I
JLubenau SDroggitis RMartin ABBeach WLBrown RJDode 3
CAHackney JTGilliland New Mexico File l
DCD(SP01)
EbcR('r M
- See previous concurrence g>
WN
.4 11 L)
. -1
\\
e JFC :RIV:R5A0
- RA
- 5P:5A:AD
- 5P
- G PAf DI l I
GPA:D
- EDO
.....:............:............:......... :..........: 4 4p.p :
......:...f.M...L
^
4AME. RDoda:ap.
- RDMartin
- YMill
- C erer
- 3chwfrtz
- HRD
- JMTaylor y
- 9/.k.......:....,......
- 9//?/90
- 9/ /A/90 LATE :9/5/90*
- 9/5/90*.
- 8/31
/90
- 9/,f.6/90 0FFICIA. RE ORD COPY I
~
N i
l i
1
,,,,-e
t i
1 SUFFARY OF ASSJSSMENTS AND COMMENTS FOR THE NEW MlXICO U DIATION CONTRO. PROGRAM AUGUST U. :.988 TO Al'5UST 17.. 990 t
Scope.of Review i
This program revitw was conducted in accordance with the Comission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreemnt State Programs published in the Federal Register on June d.1987, and the internal procedures established by the Office of Governental and Public Affairs, Agreement States Program. The State's program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided in the Guidelines. The review included inspector accompaniments, discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of i
selected license and compliance files, and tue evaluation of the State's responses to an NkC questionnaire tilat was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
The 13th Regulatory Program Review meeting with New Mexico representatives was held during the period of August 13-17, 1990, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The State was represented by Mr. Jack E11vinger, Chief Community Services Bureau, and Mr. Bill Floyd, Radiation Licensing Section.
The NRC was represented by Mr. Robert J. Doda, State Agreements Officer, NRC, Region IV.
A review of selected license and compliance files was conducted during August 14-15, 1990. A review of legislation and regulations, organization, management and administration, and personnel was conducted on August 13, 1990. A sumury meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program
+
review was held with Mr. Richard Mitzelfelt, Director, Environmental Improvement Division Department of Health and Environment, on August 17, i
1990, in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
In addition to the routine office review, an accompaniment of State inspecton, Bill Floyd and John Martinez, was made at a tracer manufnturer liceraee:
Spectratek Services Division, License Number NM-SPE-TA-00, on May 4,1989, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. A visit to a nuclear laundry, Interstate Nuclear Services, License Number NM-IIL-LA-00, was made on August 15, 1990, in Santa Fe.
Conclusion As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the State of New Mexico, the s uff determined that the New Mexico program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety.
However, a finding that the program is compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of similar materials could not be made due to the fact that three regulatory requirements t
l have not been adopted within the three-year period allowed by the NRC.
i
Status of Program Related to Previous WRC Findines The previous NRC program review was concluded on August 12, 1988, and consnents and recommendations were sent to the State in a letter dated September 7, 1988. At that time, the program was found to be adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of similar materials.
The comments and reconsnendations from the previous program review were followed up and the State's responses were evaluated for adequacy. All previous comments and recomendations have been closed out.
Current. Review Conenents and Recomrer.dations l
l The New Mexico radiation control program (RCP) satisfies the Guidelines in 25
(.
of the 29 indicators. The State did not meet the Guidelines in four Category I l
Indicators. Our coment ud recofrenendation concerning the Status and Compatibility of Regulations is significant and has precluded a finding of compatibility for the New Mexico program until such time that the necessary three regulatory anendments are promulgated in the New Mexico radiation control regulations. The other three comments and recommendations are of minor significance, and the State has already taken some actions on these recomendations.
I..
Status and Compatibility of Rgulations (Category I)
Conment The review of the State's radiation control regulations disclosed that three regulatory amendments, which are m.tters of compatibility, have not been adopted by the State within a three-year period after adoption by the NRC. These amendmints deal with a bankruptcy reporting requirement, well logging j
l requirements, and a radiography requirement relethg to a quarterly audit of radiographers. We noted 3et the well i
logging rules have been drafted. The Burcs believes that these rules will be adopted within the nth 15 months.
Reconenendation We reconenend these anendments, and any others approaching the three-year period allowed after NRC adoption, be promulgated as effective State radiation control regulations. Other compatibility regulations coming due in the near future include:
-_,___..,__._.-_.,m--.
-.v-
Rule 10 CFR Effective Date of State Sununa ry Part Equivalent Rule for Compatibility 1
l l
NVLAP Certifdration i
Dosimetry Processo.-
20 February 12, 1991 j
Decommissioning-30, 40, 70 July 27,1991 Rule l
Erargency Plans for 30 April 7, 1993 Fuel Cycle Facilities l
2.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actirns (category I)
Consnent During the license file review, we found several licenses that did not identify the manufacturer and model number of sealed sources on the license. There were a variety of reasons for this including:
(a) a new license reviewer b) the Bureau's Sealed Source and Device Registry had some mis (sing or misfiled cheets, and (c) a j
recent revision had occurred of a manufacturer's sheet for a particelar device. This coment is of minor significance since the additional information has been added to the licenses. The Bureau was advised to call the regional State Agreements Officer or the manufacturer to clarify any ouestionabic cevice sheets. Also, specific training could be offered on sealed sources and devices in NRC's regional office if the State wished to send a license reviewer for a day's-training.
Recorrt odation We recomend that on all licenses with devices utilizing sealed sources, the license reviewer and the supervisor checking the license both make sure the sources are listed by model nurber and l-manufacturer on the license docunent.
1 3.
Staty of Inspection Program (Category 1)
Comment L
Our review disclosed that four priority 1, 2 and 3 licenses were i
overdue for inspection by more than 50 perce* t of the inspection frequency. This comment is of minor significance since all of these licensees had been s isited recently, but an inspection could not be completed because the proper personnel were not available. Also three of the four licensees are well loggers who have had no recent operations dut to 16ck of work (the fourth licensee is a gauge user).
m
---.,,.n e
,n
,--w
---,.e-,
k.
>r
_. _. _ _ _. _ _. _. ~. _ __ _ _ _
t l:
m q
l
' j i
i l
The Bureau is just completing an outstanding effort at bringing all i
L overdue inspections up to date (219 inspections were completed l
during the review period).
1 i
Recomunendation We recomend that Bureau management complete this minor backlog.
4.
' Enforcement procedures (Category I' Comment Although the State's enforcement actions were adequate to meet the NRC's guidelines, it was found that the Bureau's escalated J
L enforcerent procedures are due for updating at the present time, The N M reviewer provided a good model for the Bureau's staff to use t
l in this revision process. This is a minor comment since the Stete has held appropriate enforcement conferences in the past.
,Recomendation l
We recommend that the revised escalated enforcement procedures
)
provide a more complete discussion of the use of enforcement i
conferences and how the staff chould cocument a conference after it is held.
I Summary Dis _cussiens with State Representatives A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review was held with Mr. Richard Mitzelfelt Director, Environmental Improvement Division, Department of Health and Environment, on August 17, 1990. The scope and findings of the review were discussed. He was informed of the one significant Category I finding regardino the compatibility of the 4
State's radiation control regulations.
Mr.
tzelfelt said the State J
would probably proceed directly with a reytt an of the regulations to include the three amendments that are necessary for compatibility.
During this discussion he also expressed his concern for adopting the more demanding regulations that are coming due for compatibi~11ty purposes
- such as, contingency plans, decossnissioning, and the new Part 20
)
requirements.
He believes this pieces a great buroen on the smaller Agreement State programs to maintain compatibility with the NRC's program.
Mr. Mitzelfelt stated the Division was aware of the workload in radiation control and had made the addition of some FTE resources for radon and DOE WIPP activities a high priority within the Division. -This should relieve the agreement materials staff from working in these other areas. He also expressed the State's appreciation for past NRC assistance and training for the Bureau's staff.
He said the Department will continue to support the radiation control program, any NRC-sponsored training courses, end cooperative efforts with the NRC and other At ;ement State Programs.
r
__._________________.__.,_,___.___.,._,,mm.-
l
+
i :
l t
A closecut discussion with the RCP technical staff was conducted on August 16, 1990. The State was represented by Mr. Bill F1cyd, and his radiation control staff. Several general and specific questions were raised by the State representatives. The review gui'eline questions and the State's responses were discussed in detail.
In 1dition, the results of the license and compliance casework reviews were rovided to the staff for discussion. An instructional phase was included to reinforce the proper methods to be used by State personnel when notifying NRC of incidents, when writing licenses for sealed sources and devices, and when using the Sealed Source and Device Registry.
(
l e
t Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement 5 tate Radiation Control Programs
The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
1987 as an NRC policy were published in the Federal Register on June 4,for ev,aluating Agreement State State:nent. The Guidelines provide 29 indicators program areas. Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category I it.dicators 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 1 indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
Category 11 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 those that fall trder Category I indicators. Category !!
program areas, i.e.ly can be used to identify underlying problems that are indicators frequent 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 significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public tealth 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' 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 coments, the staff may off er findings of adequacy ands 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 correspundence or perform a follow-up or 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 of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement 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 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 Act, as amended.
,