ML20045G296
| ML20045G296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/10/1990 |
| From: | Mcgrath J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Miller V NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045G120 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307130149 | |
| Download: ML20045G296 (8) | |
Text
_ - -
i QUESTION 41
/
o UNITED STATES g
[
G NUCLEAR REGUL). TORY COMMISSION
,' [
'E REGION I
\\
b j[
475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 August 10,1990 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Vandy L. Miller, Assistant Dir vk Jb State Agreements Program
__ g THRU:
Joel O. Lubenau, Senior Project i FROM:
John R. McGrath Regional State Agreements Officer
SUBJECT:
MARYLAND REVIEW VISIT A review visit was held with personnel of the Maryland radiation control program during the period April 5, July 10-12,17,1990 in Baltimore, Maryland. The following persons were contacted during the meeting:
Roland Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program Larry Ward, Assistant Deputy Secretary, TESH Carl Trump, Compliance Supervisor Charles Flynn, Licensing Supervisor The visit consisted of a follow-up on the status of State actions as a result of NRC comments from the 17th program review. Those comments were addressed in a letter to Department of the Environment Secretary Walsh dated September 19,1989. The visit also consisted ofinspection accompaniments of two inspectors d' iring a follow-up inspection to Terumo Medical Corporation and a routine inspection of Johns Hopkins Applied Physics laboratory.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS COMMENTS Comment During our last two reviews, we have commented on the need to revise the State's regulations regarding low-level radioactive waste, specifically the adoption of the waste classification and manifest systems. A draft has been proposed which addresses these and other aspects of low-level waste disposal. Mr. Fletcher has indicated that he will provide a copy of this draft for our review. In the meantime, however, we must defer a finding of compatibility until such time as these regulations become effective. Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I indicator.
l 9307130149 930701 STPRCESGGg PDR
I State Response With regard to the promulgation of low-level radioactive waste regulations, the final draft is currently being reviewed within the Department. The Controlled Hazardous Substance Advisory Council should complete their review by November 15,1989. Based upon the normal timetable for regulation promulgation in Maryland, we expect publication in the Maryland Register by December 31,1989, a public hearing by February 25,1990 and final adoption before June 1, 1990.
Present Status There has been no visible progress in the State on the adoption of low-level waste regulations.
The draft regulations which appeared imminent at the last review have not been forthcoming and the State does not appear to be taking any action that would expedite the process.
Comment We were pleased to note that the State has proposed fee legislation. We believe that fees can provide a significant, stable source of funding for a radiation control program and have encouraged all States to adopt some sort of fee system. If we can be of any assistance in moving this issue forward, please call on us. Budget is a Category II indicator.
State Response
[
Regulations regarding the establishment of radiation user fees are currently being reviewed by
~
the user community and the Radiation Control Advisory Board.
The adoption of these regulations is expected in February 1990 with initial fees due on April 1,1990. In addition to the collection of fees as a means to bolster radiation staff, we are currently conducting a review of our radiation staff salary structure, which you also note with my concurrence, as an area of concern. I have instmeted my Director of Personnel to formally evaluate the salary structure and develop proposed salary upgrades. We will keep Region I informed of our progress.
Present Stattts On May 14,1990, new Code of Maryland regulations 26.12.03, entitled " State Radiation Control Fund," became effective. This regulation requirer all radioactive materials users to pay an annual fee to the Maryland Department of the Environment Radiological Health Program.
A copy of the fee schedule is available in Region I files. The annual fees range from $50 for general licensees to $1000 for scaled source and device manufacturers / distributors. The money goes to Fiscal Services which has established a designated special fund for Radiation Control.
l
}(
3 Comment Since the last review, the program has lost two senior inspectors, one for a higher paying, but similar position in a State institution. The program has experienced some difficulty in recruiting persons with appropriate training and experience to fill these two positions. One position was filled by a transfer from the x-ray program, while the second was filled by an individual with no prior training or experience in radiation protection. The amount of training necessary to bring this individual up to the point where he can begin to contribute to the program's mission is significant. We believe that the State needs to upgrade its salary structure in order to more effectively compete for personnel with qualifications consistent with the duties and responsibilities of these positions. Staff Continuity is a Category II indicator.
State Response In addition to the collection of fees as a means to bolster radiation staff, we are currently conducting a rcview of our radiation staff salary structure, which you also note with my concurrence, as an area of concern. I have instructed by Director of Personnel to formally evaluate the salary structure and develop proposed salary upgrades. We will keep Region I informed of our progress.
t
\\
As noted in Secretuy of the Environment Martin W. Walsh's response to NRC State, Local and Indian Tribe Program Director Carlton Kammerer's letter report summarizing the results of Maryland's Agreement State Program Review, I am pleased to submit to you, the following:
i A copy of Radiological Health Program's recently submitted proposal for the restructuring of the health physicists series, including significant entry and senior inspector level grade (i.e., salary) increases.
Present Status i
The Department's Division of Personnel has approved the first part of the package to upgrade positions in the program, but this only affects the Program Administrators, i.e. the licensing and compliance supervisors. The rest of the plan is scheduled for implementation by September 1, i
1990.
Comment Over the past few years, the use of radioactive material in the State has increased significantly.
There are now over 500 lienses in tbc State. Statistical data used to manage the program is still being processed by hand. For an Agreement State program the size of Maryland's, we have found that computer capability is necessary to effectively manage the program. The Center has a personnel computer available to the staff, and we recommend that the staff explore ways of 1
a %$,%..
~
i
.(
4 effectively utilizing this resource. Office Equipment and Support Services is a Category II indicator.
1 State Resoonse i
As you note, a program the size of RHP has a continuing need to acquire and effectively use computers. The RHP is using its personal computer to automate its licensing files for rapid information retrieval. Computer hardware will continue to be obtained with a five year goal of a workstation on each desk and a completely networked system in RHP.
Present Status In addition to the IBM PC noted during the last review, the program now has three Daly DC 286 IBM-compatible computers and two Compaq 286's. The computers contain license data for current licensees with the NRC license category code. They are also used for typing memos and letters and generating mailing lists. In the future, they will be used for preparing licensing checklists, writing licenses, ud managing a more complete database on licensees.
Comment We were pleased to note that, in most cases, the Center was diligent in pursuing effective k
enforcement action when circumstances so required. The State has taken a number of escalated enforcement actions including civil penalties in the period since our last review; however, as noted during previous reviews, the Center has no written procedures which address the process by which escalated enforcement actions are taken. We believe that the documentation of these procedures would be of benefit to the program. Enforcement Procedures is a Category I indicator.
- R_esponse a.
'Ihe Radiological Health Program (RHP) is currently drafting written enforcement procedures on which to base its enforcement actions for radioactive material violations. To insure (sic) consideration of a myriad of situations and levels of enforcement, departmental attorneys are working closely with RHP to finalize these procedures by November 30,1989. Once completed, these procedures will be forwarded to Region I for comment prior to inclusion in the next revision of Maryland Radiation Protection Regulations scheduled for September,1990.
Present Status On March 19, 1990, the State forwarded a copy of program guidance regarding escalated enforcement actions, particularly with regard to civil penalty assessment. This document is currently being used and will be incorporated into the next revision of radiation protection regulations.
t
)
4 Comment We noted an exception to the program's generally diligent pursuit of timely and effective
)
enforcement action. In june 1988, the State issued an order to Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI) requiring the licensee to address, among other things, the deficiencies in monitoring personnel as they leave the limited access area (LAA). This action was the result of an incident in May 1988 in which an employee of NPI was found to be contaminated with cobalt-60 at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in New York. Subsequent inspections at NPI in July-August 1988 and October-November 1988 revealed that adequate corrective action had not yet been achieved.
This issue came to our attention again when, subsequent to our program review, we were notified by Ginna Reactor staff on February 24,1989 that the same individual from NPI was found to j
have cobalt-60 contamination again at the Ginna site. Analysis of the contalination revealed the presence of cobalt-60 " hot particles," a form of contamination representing a significantly higher potential for causing radiation injury.
Since the February 1989 event, we have worked very closely with the Center staffin addressing the NPI situation. The State issued an order on March 3,1989 essentially closing down the licensee's operation. We believe the State took a prudent course of action and has taken a cautious approach in evaluating NPI's proposed corrective actions, including obtaining NRC technical assistance in evaluating the NPI program. Although some problems did arise, both on the part of the State and NRC, particularly in the area of communication, we believe overall the k
State has handled this difficult case in an admirable manner, and we look forward to working with the Center h addressing the issues that remain to be resolved prior to granting Neutron Products full license authority.
State Resnonse With regard to Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI), we have permitted a return to full operations, except for the melting of Cobalt-60. We have amended NPI's license to add many requirements that have been instrumental in the upgrading of the facility's radiation safety practices. We will continue to monitor NPI frequently to assure that all corrective measures are implemented and carried out in accordance with these newly developed requirements. With regard to NPI, we appreciate the continuing assistance of both Region I and NRC Headquarters, particularly, in providing inspection accompaniment in March and September of 1989. We have invited Region I to accompany us when we observe the Cobalt-60 melt at NPI, once they receive authorization to conduct it.
Present Status During the past year, the State has authorized NPI to perform a number of cobalt melts. The State observed the first melt and saw no specific problems. During reentry into the cell, an employee failed to wear adequate respiratory protective equipment and ingested a particle of cobalt-60. Because of the insolubility of the particle no appreciable exposure was received, f
however the incident raised concerns about the licensee's radiation safety procedures. In addition
7 6
(
to preparing an order and proposed civil penalty with respect to this incident, the State is preparing to reissue to NPI license. All past internal NPI procedures will be incorporated by reference into the new license. Twenty-eight of the current NPI procedures have been in-part modifies by the State to clarify NPI management responsibilities and to better ensure good health physics practices. Among the issues which the State addresses are the shipment of waste, the establishment of a records room, pool cleanup by October 1990, semiannual surveys of employee vehicles and residences, the labeling of equipment, the changing of hot cell manipulator pads, and notification requirements.
SIGNIFICANT PROGRAM CHANGES Lecislation Senate Bill No.152 is currently before the legislature and would strengthen the States's enforcement program. The main provisions of the bill would provide authority for the radiation control program to issue fines for violation of State regulations without hearing. The fines would be for up to $1,000 for each violation, but not to exceed $50,000 total.
Lecal Assistance The Department has recently experienced a high turnover of legal staff. Because of the new k
staff's being unfamiliar with the radiation control program and taking a cautious approach with regard to enforcement action, the proposed enforcement action against N?! Pas been held up.
Mr. Fletcher indicated, however, that some action will be taken by the State before the end of the summer.
Personnel Since the last review, one individual left the program, Steve Stackhouse. Mr. Stackhouse had been a new employee who had been on probation. The position has been filled by Nate Owrutsky who has been in the RHP x-ray program for a number of years. The State plans to increase the program staff by two positions in the near future, one in licensing and one in compliance. Mr. Flynn, who is close to retirement plans to step down as licensing supervisor in the near future.
Compliance Due to the great amount of effort expended on NPI in the past year, the programs inspection backlog has increased. It currently stand at a total of 112 with 0 in Priority 1,1 in Priority 2, 5 in Priority 3, 62 in Priority 4, and 44 in Priority 5. Mr. Jacobson is now beginning to perform independent inspection in all Priorities and Mr. Owrutsky, although still in training, does perform inspections of lower priority licensees. The State anticipates that they will be able to reduce the backlog signifimtly over the next few months.
"^
7 The reviewer discussed the most recent changes to the NRC priority system with the compliance supervisor, who indicated that the revised system will probably require the State to perform an additional 10-15 inspection per year.
Conclusion Based on this visit, it is recommended that the next regular review of the Maryland program be conducted in June 1991. In the interim, due to the lack of action to amend the regulations to address low-level waste, it is recommended that another letter be addressed to Secretary Walsh in order to remind the State of the necessity to move forward on this issue. In addition, we need the monitor the State's progress in addressing the inspection backlog.
A. N fJohn R. McGrath Regional State Agreements Officer f
i i
(
., QUESTION 42 UNITED *TATfs q
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
mAamwoTom,o, c.anses July 10,1991 Mr. Robert Perciasepe Secretary MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224
Dear Mr. Perciasepe:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. John McGrath held with you on April 3,1991 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 Cosnission (hRC) and the State, the staff has determined that the State's program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety, however, we must again withhold a finding of compatibility due to the status of the State s regulations.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category 1 indicator.
During our last review of the State's program, we noted that the State had not yet adopted the provisions in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 relating to low-level radioactive waste classification (including transuranics) and manifesting. These requirements became effective in January 1983 and were determined to be a matter of compatibility for all Agreement States, to be adopted by January 1986. The Department has been developing
{
regulations in the area of low-level waste disposal which would address these requirements as well as other provisions of 10 CFR Part 61. We have reviewed an early draft and provided comments on these proposed i
amendments,.
In recent discussions with the Maryland Departrent of the Environment (HDE) staff attorneys, we provided information on the specific requirements to maintain compatibility with NRC reqtirements.
1 In addition to the low-level waste regulations, there are a tumber of other changes to NRC regulations which the State has Lot adopted within j
three years. of the NRC affective date. Also, rules pertaining to the decennissioning of licensed facilities need to be in place by July 1, 1991. Finally, the NRC recently issued a major revision to its rtdiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20, which must be adopted anti effective in the Agreement States by January 1,1994. Steps should be taken to adost rules to update the regulations on an accelerated schedule to enable a finding of compatibility. Additionally, the State should initiate proceedings in a timely manner to assure adoption of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 rules by the January 1,1994 deadline.
g@y-
L C
Robert Perciasepe 2
JUL 101991 4
The State is continuing escalated enforcement action against Neutron Products,Inc.(NPI). The NRC staff has provided assistance in this regard. We share your concerns over the apparent lack of resolution of safety issues at NPI, despite issuance of Orders and Civil Penalties.
The repeated failures to resolve previously identified safety issues, coupled with a disclosure of significant new safety issues, raise questians about the ability of NPI to operate in compliance with State regulatory safety requirements.
In order to more fully understand your j
future plans with respect to this licensee, we have agreed to meet with your staff on July 17, 1991 to discuss this matter further.
j An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 1. contains connents regarding the State's program which were discussed with you, and Messrs. Ward and Fletcher during our exit raeeting. As indicated during our meeting, we would like a response from the State on the issues discussed in Enclosure 2.
In accordance with NRC practice, I am also enclosing a second copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
We appreciate the continued cooperation with the NRC and the courtesy extended by your staff to Mr. McGrath during the review.
Sincerely, briginal signed by Carlton Kammerer Carlton Kamerer, Director State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls:
J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations NRC T. T. Martin, Regional Administrator.
NRC Region I State Liaison Officer State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room
L
- [
Enclosure 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 June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guidelines provide 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 several Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
Categcry II indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions. Good performance in nieeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential ir, 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 cousing, 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 rade.
If no significant Category I coments are provided, this will incicate 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 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 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 confinned 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 follow-up or special, limited review.
hRC 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 Docurent 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 ray institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Act, as amended.
(
l
(
i
'(
l
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW AND COMMENTS MARYLAND RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM MRCH 1991 Scope of Review This program review was conducted in accordance with the Commission's i
Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs published in the Federal _ Register on June 4,1087, and the internal procedures established by the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, State Programs, State Agreements Program. The State's program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided in the Guidelines. The review included discussions with program staff, technical evaluation of selected license and compliance files, the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review, and field eval'uations of State inspectors.
The 18th regulatory program review meeting with the State was held during the period March 18-27 and April 3,1991 in Baltimore, Maryland.
The State was represented by Roland Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program. A review of selected license, compliance and incident files was conducted by Mr. John McGrath, Region 1 State Agreements Officer, during the period March 18, 25-27, 1991.
Field accompaniments of State inspectors were conducted during the period March 19-21,1991 by Mr. McGrath. A closecut meeting was held with Mr. Robert Perciasepe, Secretary, Department of the Environment on April 3,1991.
Conclusion The Maryland program for the control of agreement materials was found to be adequate to protect public health and safety, however a finding of compatibility could not be made due to the status of the State's radiation control regulations.
Status of Program Related to Previous NRC Findings During the past few reviews of the Maryland program, the staff has withheld a finding of compatibility based on the need to update the State's regulations concerning the classification and manifesting of low-level waste. The State's regulations are still in the draft stage and the staff is again withholding a finding of compatibility.
At the time of the last review, the State had proposed fee legislation which would provide for annual license fees for radioactive materials users in the State. The fee legislation passed and the Department is now assessing annual fees on all licensees including those operating in the State under reciprocity.
The State's radiation control program continues to experience staff
(
turnover and previous comments regarding the State salary structure appear to be still applicable. Since the last review, the Department proposed restructuring the salaries for its staff, however, only part of
k 9
(
i 2
the plan was implemented. As a result, program supervisors received salary upgrades, but the other staff did not.
It was recommended that this is an area that the State must continue to focus on.
During the last review, the staff corsnented on the need to improve the program's data management capabilities. Since that time, the program has purchased additional equipment and has expanded its use of data processing.
As a result of the last two reviews, the staff corsnented on the need for the State to document its escalated enforcement procedures. Since the last review the Department has drafted, and is using escalated enforcement procedures which address the concern expr,essed during past reviews. The Department plans to formalize the procedures by incorpurating them into the Department's radiation control regulations.
_ Current Review Comments and Recomendations All 29 program indicators were reviewed and the State fully satisfies 24 of these indicators. Specific comments and recomendations for the remaining four indicators are as follows:
1.
LEGISLATION AHD REGULATIONS Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category 1 indicator.
Comment The State has not yet adopted regulatory requirements relating to low-levelradioactivewasteclassification(includingtransuranics) and manifesting as delineated in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61. These requirements became effective in January 1983 and were determined to be a matter of compatibility for all Agreement States, to be adopted by January 1986. The Department has been developing low-level waste disposal regulations which would address these requirements as well as other provisions of 10 CFR Part 61. We have reviewed an early draft and provided cornnents on these proposed amendments.
In recent discussions with HDE legal staff, we provided information on the specific requirements to maintain compatibility with NRC requirements.
In addition to the low-level waste regulations, there are a number of other changes to NRC regulations which the State has not adopted within three years of the NRC effective date. These include the revisions to the transportation regulations, the elimination of the exemption for glass enamel frit, changes to the regulations governing industrial radiography, the bankruptcy notification requirement, medical misadministration reporting, well logging requirements and the NVLAP certification of dosimetry processors.
(
These rules should have been in place and effective now to enable a compatibility finding. The decomissioning rule should be effective by July 1,1991. The recent revision to NRC's 10 CFR Part 20 rule must be effective by January 1,1994.
l 3
Recommendation We believe that the State should continue to process the proposed amendments concerning low-level waste.
In addition to the low-level waste regulations, there are a nuwber of other changes to NRC regulations which the State has not adopted within three years of the NRC effective date. Also, rules pertaining to the decommissioning of licensed facilities need to be in place by July 1,1991. Finally, the NRC recently issued a major revision to its radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20, which must be adopted and effective in the Agreement States by January 1,1994.
Steps should be taken to adopt rules to update the regulations on an accelerated schedule to enable a finding of compatibility.
Additionally, the State should initiate proceedings in a timely manner to assure adoption of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 rules by the January 1 1994 deadline.
II. PERSONNEL
]
A.
Training is a Category II indicator.
_ Comment Due to continuing staff turnover and the inability to recruit staff with training and experience in radiation protection, it is necessary for the State to expend a considerable effort in the i
training of new staff in order for them to become productive in the primary mission of the program. NRC offers a series of core l
training courses that has as its objective the development of radiation control staff with the expertise necessary to carry out the mission of an Agreement State program. These training courses are offered at no expense to States.
Recommendation We recommend that the State take full advantage of NRC training courses.
In particular, it was evident during the review that new Department staff are in need of training in basic health physics and radiation protection. Because of the State's current critical need, we will do what we can to address this need on a priority basis.
B.
Staff Continuity is a Category II indicator.
Coment NRC guidelines state, in part, that " Staff turnover should be minimized by combinations of opportunities for training, promotions, and competitive salaries. Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons of appropriate professional
(
qualifications. Salaries should be comparable to similar employment in the geographical area." The Maryland Radiological Health Program
t 3
- [
4 has continued tu experience staff turnover and, of particular concern to us, has not been able to recruit individuals with any background in health physics for the technically demanding work of the program. The primary reason for this is, we believe, the inadequate salary levels, particularly at the entrance level which is the lowest in the northeast.
Recommendation We believe that the Department must take decisive, timely action to address this program deficiency due to the significant impact it can have on the program.
III. COMPLIANCE l
Status of Inspection Program is a Category I indicator. The following comment and recommendation concern an issue which is not considered of major significance at this time.
_ Comment As of the time of the review, there were 89 licenses overdue for inspection. Although these were in the lower priorities and were not overdue by significant seriods of time, it does indicate a 1
disturbing trend.
During tie last review, the program had no overdue inspections despite the staff turnover and other problems.
Recommendation We believe that the State needs to carefully monitor the in' vection backlog to assure that the problem does not continue to esrciate.
The most effective way of keeping the inspection backlog in check is to maintain an adequate staff to handle the workload.
Summary Discussion with_ State Representatives A sunnary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review i
was held with Mr. Robert Perciasepe, Secretary, Department of the Environment on April 3,1951. Mr. Lawrence Ward, Director, Toxies, Environmental Science and Health, and Mr. Roland Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, were also present. The NRC representative, Mr. John McGrath, discussed the review process and the conclusions as listed in the above comunents.
In addition to these corsnents, it was noted that the NRC had been following the protracted enforcement action regarding Neutron Products, Inc. and that we encouraged the State to maintain its resolve to successfully conclude its enforcement action.
With regard to the salary situation, Mr. Perciasepe indicated that noncompetitive salaries were a problem throughout the Department and that he was preparing a package requesting upgrades for transmittal to the f
State Personnel Department.
w
QUESTION 43 APPENDIX E 1
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
-l DEPARTMENTAL ORDERS:
-l l
+
A " Consent Order" between the Johns Hopkins Medical Institution (JHMI) and the State of Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's (DHMH) Division of Radiation Control was signed jointly by Dr. David Blake of JHMI on March 28,1986 and Mr. David Resh of DHMH on April 4,1986.
+
Dreartmcotal Order (0-86-01): issued to Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI) on June 20,1986 for improper and unauthorized transport /use of depleted uranium and cobalt-60. Also regarding the incident contamination of an unrestricted facility by an NPI employec.
+
Deoartmental Order (0-86-02): issued to Neutron Products,Inc. on June 20,1986 for failure to properly evaluate and provide apprnpriate radiation safety for hot cell operations on May 8,1986.
4 pmgrtmental Order (0-86-03): issued to Sperry Corporation [MD-33-036-02] on August 6,1986 for failing to control the concentration of radioisotopes released as effluents to unrestricted areas.
61ANAQEMENT CONFERENCES:
+
Maryland State Highway Administration [MD 05-049-01] on November 17,1986
+
Froehling and Robertson, Inc. IMD 07-101-01] on November 26,1986
+
University of Maryland [MD 07-014-01] on December 10,1986 Ll DENSE MODIFICA TIONS:
+
Seaboard Industries, Inc.
+
The wording in paragraph 11.B. of 23 licenses was modified from "...use by and under the supervision of..." to "...use by only" 4
License terminated because licensee left company; company obtained license, former licensee cannot bo located, l&ENSE SUSEENSION:
+
Nuclear Cardiology Labs [MD-31 121-01], license was suspended on October 8, 1986 and the suspension was lifted on October 15,1986.
RGF: don
- - -, -