ML20046C658
| ML20046C658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/09/1991 |
| From: | Mcgrath J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Miller V NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044B476 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308110308 | |
| Download: ML20046C658 (6) | |
Text
.-
Question 55 fuog l
k.
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
E REQlON I
\\
l 478 ALLENDALE ROAD
- +*
KING OF PMUSSIA PENNSYLVANIA 19408 i
May 9,1991 i
b MEMORANDUM FOR:
Vandy L. Miller, Assistant Director for fe State Agreements Program THRU:
Joel O. Lubenau, Senior Project M FkOM:
JohnIR. McGrath Regional State Agreements Officer
[
TUBJECT:
NEW HAMPSHIRE REVIEW VISIT A review visit was held with personnel of the New Hampshire radiation control program during the period April 16-17, 1991 in Concord, New Hampshire. The following persons were l
contacted during the meeting:
l i
Diane Tefft, Administrator, Bureau of Radiological Health Dennis O'Dowd, Supervisor, Fadioactive Materials Section The visit consisted of a follow-up on the status of State actions as a result of NRC comments from the last regular program review conducted in January 1989 and follow-up review conducted in February and October 1990. Those comments were addressed in letters to Dr. Wallace, i
Director, Division of Public Health Services', dated April 10,1989 and Commissioner Mongan, l
Department of Health and Human Services dated March 13, 1990.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS COMMENTS 1
Comment We are concerned about the lack of funds for administrative needs, such as travel, utilities, and.
I such anticipated costs as the printing of regulations. Although essential needs are being met by.
j l
shifting funds from other programs, this is not an adequate long term solution. We believe that l
the Bureau's budget should be structured such that adequate funding is available for each program area.
1 l
State Remonse i
Sufficient monies for necessary functions is an ongoing concern within the Division. Currently the budget for the next biennium is being discussed by the NH legislature. The Divnion's i
9308110308 930714, PDR STPRG ESGGEN PDR i
i
2 Radiological Health budget request was based on a statewide edict not to exceed 97% of the past years budget. Since our submittal, many different versions of the budget having varying proposed appropriations have emerged. It is difficult to guess which of these many versions will become the final budget for the Division and Radiological Health for FY 90/91. However, I can assure you that sufficient funds will be maue available to provide the administrative support to staff.
Present Status At the time of the February 1990 follow-up review, it was leamed that a separate budget for the Bureau had been established. Since that time, the State has continued to experience across-the-board budget difficulties which could have a significant impact on the Bureau. However, because of the size of the Bureau, cuts could not have been made without eliminating positions.
Cuts have been absorbed by other program offices and the Bureau has been able to maintain its current staff with adegrate administrative funds to support program objectives. The House and Governor-approved budget for FY 1992 and 1993 appears to contain adequate funding for the program including operating expenses.
Comment As of the time of the review, a computer printout prepared by Bureau staffindicated that 43 out of the State's 90 licenses were overdue for inspection. Nine of these were overdue by more than 50% of the inspection interval, a criterion used by NRC to determine if a license is significantly overdue. Although visits and partial inspection have been performed at Dartmouth and the University of New Hampshire, these are overdue for full inspections by more than 50% of their inspection frequency.
State Response The specific plan for addressing the inspection backlog has been prepared and is currently underway. According to this plan, all overdue (>50% of inspection interval) Priority I to include a safety inspection of Dartmouth Medical / College will be completed by July 1,1989; Priority Il by December 31,1989 and Priority III by December 31,1989. The remainder of past due inspections (i.e. < 50% of inspection interval) should be caught up by April 30,1990.
Present Status In response to our letter to Commissioner Mongan, the State prepared a plan to address the backlog by December 31,1990 as well as maintaining the ongoing inspection schedule. The State has done an excellent job in keeping to that schedule. Currently, there are no licenses overdue.
3 Comment The New Hampshire radiation control regulations were last updated in September 1983. While we recognize the State's efforts to implement new health and safety compatibility requirements through the licensing process, these should be implemented by regulations. Therefore, guidelines for Agreement States recommends that to maintain compatibility their regulations be updated within three years of the effective date of NRC amendments. The State needs to establish an immediate plan to address the updating of the regulations.
State Response We are aware of the necessity for revision of our Rules in order to remain compatible with the NRC and other Agreement States. The Bureau fully intends to not only revise its Rules, but to also include new rules necessary to become a Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors designated Licensing State and to allow for civil penalties and surety bonding in accordance with NH Statutes. Such rules are set to be in place by July 31,1990. In the interim we do not see a need to develop, as recommended, such policy statements, orders and other administrative actions in order to be assured that the licensees are complying with some of the new NRC regulations. We remind you that NH has already in place rules requiring reporting of medical misadministrations and compliance with DOT transportation of radioactive material. Also the i
license reviews and conditions of use for our two industrial radiography licensees do reflect NRC's changes in requirements and our work with GTE Sylvania has made us extremely cautious in granting any source material exemptions. We believe that instead of prolonging the Rule revision with time-consuming development of administrative actions in areas we believe already covered, it would be more beneficial having our staff address the major deficiencies noted in your letter and to begin Rule revision at once.
Present Status Since the last regular review, the State has continued to move back its target date for updating regulations. (The targes date specified in the last letter from Dr. Wallace to complete revisions to the Rules is December 31,1990.) In the past few months, the State has prepared a draft of the regulatory changes necessary to maintain compatibility. These changes are currently undergoing internal Division review. The Division attomey apparently has a number of questions regarding the changes and these will have to be addressed prior to forwarding the changes to legislative Services for review. In addition to developing the draft, the State will also have to prepare a rationale for each proposed change to the existing regulations. The State now believes that it will be September 1991 before final promulgation. The next regular review of the New Hampshire program was scheduled for June 1991, i.e. before the State regulations would be amended. In discussions with State management, it has been agreed that the next review would be scheduled for September 1091.
k
i 4
(
Comment I
The Bureau maintains a close accounting of staffing effort in the four program areas, more so than most other Agreement States. During the last year, the radioactive materials program effort amounted to 1.49 FTE. This figure, however, is somewhat inflated when compared to other Agreement States' programs due to the inclusion of staff overtime, attendance at meetings and training. NRC staff level criteria states that Agreement State programs should operate at a staffing level of 1 to 1.5 staff-years per 100 licenses in effect. We recognize, however, that due to the " economies of scale", smaller programs are greatly impacted by non-routine tasks such as updating regulations, preparing written procedures, responding to incidents, etc. For this reason, our criteria also indicates that a program should have a minimum of two persons available to perform the duties of the program.
We believe that, based on the size of the New Hampshire program and the current tasks to be addressed, a minimum of 2 FTE is essential to assure that all program elements are addressed in a manner such that program needs in one area do not adversely affect the program in other areas.
State Response We agree that additional staff is necessary for elimination of the above noted deficiencies and I
for continued adequate performance. Budget restraints however, have precluded the addition of I
this needed staff. A request was made on February 1,1989 for review of a currently vacant Bureau of Radiological Health 12boratory Scientist III-Radiochemist position for upgrade and reallocation to Health Physicist I under the supervision of Mr. Dennis O'Dowd, Radioactive Materials Section. This request is currently under review by the NH Division of Personnel.
Should this position be approved as Health Physicist I, and we are confident that it will be, the staffmg level in the Radicactive Material Section would approach 2.0 FTE. In order to bring the staffing level to a full 2.0 FTE, it is the intent of the Bureau Administrator to further request the addition of another Health Physicist I position in the next biennial budget.
Present Status Legislation authorizing an additional staff position for the Radioactive Materials Sectic i was signed by Governor Gregg on February 20,1990. The position was filled shortly thereafter by Chris Pirie who formerly worked in the radiochem lab. Mr. Pirie has been performing inspections and is beginning to review licensing actions. The addition of this staff position has had a significant impact on the Bureau's ability to meet the targets in the task plan.
Comment During previous reviews we have commented on the need to document the State's escalated enforcement procedures. Prior to the last review legislation was enacted authorizing the program
{
to issue civil penalties and we recommended that the State proceed with the development of J
(
specific implementing regulation and procedures as soon as possible. As of this review, no action has yet been taken to prepare the necessary regulations and procedures.
State Response Regulations for allowance of civil penalties are intended to be included in the upcoming revision of the Rules. The escalated enforcement procedures in place, although unwritten, have sufficed to allow for execution of all necessary enforcement actions to date. It is our intent, however, to document these procedures in writing and to add the provisions necessary for allowance of civil penalty actions. We further intend to have a first draft of these procedures by the end of November 1989.
Present Status According to the State's plan, the enforcement procedures were to be completed by August 31, 1990. The State did not meet this target although draft procedures, based on 10 cfr Part 2 and other Agreement State enforcement procedures, have been prepared. The regulations governing civil penalties will be included in the overall regulation revision that is now under way.
Comment NRC guidelines indicate that radiation control programs should have adequate instrumentation for conducting surveys for all types of material licensed by the program. This includes alpha survey instrumentation. The Bureau's current alpha survey equipment is quite old and during recent use was found to be somewhat unreliable. We recommend that the State obtain new alpha survey instrumentation.
State Response The Bureau has ordered new instrumentation to include an alpha survey meter.
i Present Status An alpha survey meter has been obtained.
OTHER ISSUES At the time of the February 1990 follow-up, we recommended that the current inspector receive additional training to enable him to perform independent inspections of Priority 1 and 2 licensees. Wayne Johnston has now attended all NRC core training courses and has accompanied a Region I inspecte' on inspections of medical facilities including a broad medical licensee. State management wou'.a like Mr. Johnston to accompany an NRC inspector on an inspection of an industrial radiography licensee. It is the State's plan to have Mr. Pirie begin to attend NRC
(
training courses starting with the five-week health physics course next year.
i l
The State's licensing backlog has been significantly reduced thanks to the assistance of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. An employee from the State of Texas was with the Bureau for two weeks and his assistance was greatly effective in addressing the licensing backlog. The State is beginning to receive responses to deficiency letters this individual prepared and when these cases are resolved there should be no reason for the backlog to increase.
d During the last follow-up review, the State's in house program for handling radioactive sources was reviewed. It was recommended that the Bureau conduct and document an inventory of the radioactive sources under the Department's control, perform the necessary leak tests and radiation 7
surveys and assure the sources are appropriately stored, secured and labelled. It was also recommended that the issuance of a license to the Department, covering all uses by the Bureau staff, would provide a means of maintaining control over these sources and other staff activities involving the use of radioactive material. The Bureau has inventoried the sealed sources that are currently on hand and have now completed leak testing the sources. A draft license for the Department has been prepared and is undergoing internal review. It was also recommended that the Bureau promptly calibrate survey instrumentation used by the inspection staff. At the time of the last visit there was only one calibrated instrument available. The Bureau now has the facilities and procedures to perform the calibrations and the program appears to be functioning as intended.
Conclusion
\\
The State has continued to make progress and should be in a position to meet all review criteria by the next review scheduled for September 1991.
jA A.F9ta. -
L ohn R. McGrath Regional State Agreements Officer d