ML20046C665
| ML20046C665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/08/1991 |
| From: | Costello F NRC |
| To: | Miller V NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044B476 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308110327 | |
| Download: ML20046C665 (8) | |
Text
e Questica 55 1
'\\
October 8, 1991
)?
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Vandy L. Miller, Assistant Dire for State Agreements Program FROM:
Francis M. Costello Acting Regional State Agreements Officer
SUBJECT:
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 1991 PROGRAM REVIEW As noted in the letter report, the program was found to be adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the programs of the NRC and other Agreement State programs.
Enclosed is the supplementary information concerning the 1991 review of the Maryland radiatio.1 control program. This supplementary information includes the following: - Control Sheet - Reviewer Explanatory Comments - Review of Selected License Files - Review of Selected Compliance Files I recommend that a routine review be conducted in 6 months.
r 1%
F ancis M. Costello cting Regional State Agreements Officer
Enclosures:
As stated 1
9308110327 930714 PDR STPRG ESGGEN PDR
4
'l CONTROL SHEET 1.
Radiation Control Program:
Type of Review:
Follow-up 3.
Dates of Review:
a.
Field Evaluations:
N/A b.
Regional or Contract Agency Office Visits: N/A c.
Visits to Licensed Facilities:
N/A d.
Office Review:
September 9-12, 1991
- e. Exit Meeting: September 12, 1991 4.
Period of Review:
5.
Region NRC Representative: Francis M. Costello Staff days in State: 4 ENCLOSURE 1 i
l
k l
REVIEWER EXPLANATORY COMMENTS I.
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS A.
Leaal Authority The State's regulations for the control of radioactive materials expired in late August 1991 and it became necessary that the State re-issue these regulations on an emergency, temporary basis on f
August 30, 1991. This emergency re-issuance will expire on December 27, 1991 and it is necessary for the State to re-format i
the regulations before they can be permanently issued again.
Because the NRC was concerned that the State might find itself i
again without effective regulations for the control of radioactive materials when the emergency regulations expire on December 27, a
letter dated September 10, 1991 was sent to the State which requested the State to provide a timetable of the steps necessary for the issuance of the permanent regulations.
B.
Status and Compatibility of Reculations f
The State estimates that the regulatory changes necessary to achieve compatibility will be issued by the end of October, 1991.
These regulatory changes included (1) the transportation rule; (2) the well-logging rule; (3) the radiography quarterly audit and storage survey rule; (4) the glass enamel frit exemption; (5) the a
certification of dosimetry processors; and (6) the licensee bankruptcy reporting requirement. However, the State has not issued a Decommissioning Rule and the progress to date in the development of such a rule is only in the planning stages.
r IV.
PERSONNEL B.
Staffino Level The addition of an additional staff position in the last fiscal year has had a significant impact on the Bureau's ability to meet the inspection goals and has resulted in the utilization of approximately 2.2 FTE by the program for the last fiscal year.
However, there remain uncertainties in the funding for the Bureau's budget for FY 1992 and FY 1993 which may affect the State's ability to continue to provide the current level of FTE to the radiation control program.
3 0
ENCLOSURE 2 6
V.
LICENSING A.
Technical Ouality of Licensino Actions During the review, 4 license files were reviewed. See Enclosure 3.
The license action reviewed were found to be adequate.
However, it should be noted that the State terminated the GTE license following the guidance in the NRC Branch Technical Position 4.
While the former licensee retains possession of the property, there remains soil contamination under the facility as high as 220 picocuries per gram of thorium. The GTE facility is in an area zoned for industrial use and the recorded title document was amended to state that the land contains buried radioactive material and was conditioned to contain the covenants described in option 4 of the Branch Technical Position.
I.
COMPLIANCE A.
Status of Inspection Proaram As of the time of the review, there were no licenses overdue for inspection by more than 50% of the inspection interval.
G.
Inspection Reports contains a review of selected compliance files. Nine inspection files were reviewed.
For the most part inspection findings and enforcement actions are adequately documented. The comments on each of the files werc discussed with Bureau management and with the staff involved.
In two instances, a licensee was called in to the State offices to meet with Bureau management and discuss significant violations identified during an inspection.
i i
l i
REVIEW OF SELECTED LICENSE FILES During the review, 4 license files were reviewed. The license action reviewed were found to be adequate.
- 1. Clarostat NFG License No. NH-169 R License Type: Gauge License Action: Termination Date Issued: 5/21/91
- 2. Concord Otolaryngology License No. NH-328 R License Type: In-vitro lab License Action: Termination Date Issued: 4/15/91
- 3. Diatech License No. None License Type: Research & Development License Action: Denial of new license application Date Issued: 1/8/91
- 4. GTE License No. NH-009 S License Type: Source material License Action: Termination Date Issued: 7/30/91 i
)
ENCLOSURE 3 1
i I
REVIEW OF SELECTED COMPLIANCE FILES Nine inspection files were reviewed.
For the most part inspection findings and enforcement actions are adequately documented.
1
- 1. Licensee: Venegas Industrial Testing License No.: NH-217 R Type of Licensee / Facility: Industrial Radiography Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Inspection Date: 4/15/91 Inspector: Pirie
- 2. Licensee: Dartmouth College License No.: NH-276 R Type of Licensee / Facility: Broad Academic l
Inspection Type: Special, Announced Inspection Date: 4/18/91 Inspector: Pirie
- 3. Licensee: Process Engineering License No.: NH-299 R Type of Licensee / Facility: Industrial Radiography i
Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Inspection Date: 9/26/90 Inspector: Halle
- 4. Licensee: Mary Hitchcock Hospital License No.: NH-130 R Type of Licensee / Facility: Group Medical
' t Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Inspection Date: 4/12/91 Inspector: Johnston
- 5. Licensee: Exeter Hospital License No.: NH-138 R Type of Licensee / Facility: Group Medical Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Inspection Date: 1/11/91 Inspector: Johnston 4
l ENCLOSURE'4 1
l l
'(
- 6. Licensee: HCA Health Services Of New Hampshire License No.: NH-308 R Type of Licensee / Facility: Group Medical Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Inspection Date: 8/23/90 Inspector: Johnston
- 7. Licensee: Medarex License No.: NH-350 R Type of Licensee / Facility: Research & Development Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced Inspection Date: I/31/91 Inspector: Johnston
- 8. Licensee: Wentworth-Douglas Hospital License No.: NH-206 R Type of Licensee / Facility: Group Medical Inspection Type: Limited, Unannounced Inspection Date: ?/3/91 Inspector: Johnston
- 9. Licensee: St. Joseph's Hospital License No.: NH-256 R Type of Licensee / Facility: Group Medical Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Inspection Date: 9/1/90 Inspector: Pirie P
i t
COMMENTS FILE NO.
1.
Enforcement letter issued more than 30 days after inspection.
3,4,6,8 2.
Inspection exit meeting not specified in report 8
3.
Lack of interviews of radiation workers 8
4.
License was overdue for inspection 1,3 5.
Documents missing from file 1
6.
State acknowledgement to licensee was not timely 3,8,9 7.
Inadequate follow-up on prior incident I
Patrick Meehan, M.D.
3
m Question 55
.{'_ '
[
'g UNITED STATES
- i
- f
[
T g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
msmworow.o.c. sones 3
s, ( d'h*e..*
~
(
i November 21, 1991 Patrick Meehan, M.D.,_
Director Division of Public Health Services Health and Welfare Building 6 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301-6527
~l Dear Dr. Meehan-This letter confirms the discussions William Kane and Francis Costello of l
Region I held with Susan Epstein and other members of your staff on
~
September 12,-1991, as to the results of our follow-up review of the State's radiation control program.
The number of problems found in your program during our January 1989 review indicated the need for a follow-up review to evaluate the corrective actions taken in response to our comments. A follow-up review was held during the period February 20-22, 1990 during which we noted the State was making considerable progress but that a finding of adequacy and compatibility still-needed to be withheld. A second follow-up review was held during the period l
September 9-12, 1991.
I As a result of the second follow-up review, we are happy to report that we are able to find the State's radiation control program to be both adequate and t
compatible. The compatibility finding is contingent on the completion of the following regulations deemed to be satters of. compatibility:
(1) the transportation rule; (2) the well-logging rule; (3) the radiography quarterly 1
audit and storage survey rule; (4) the glass enamel frit exemption; (5) the certification of dosimetry processors; and (6) the licensee bankruptcy reporting requirement. We understand that this rulemaking process is almost complete and that these regulations will be in place in the near future. We request that New Hampshire notify us when these rules become final. -
a While we have concluded that the State's program is adequate and com>atible at this time, we are aware that the State faces a number of issues whic1 will-significantly challenge your ability to maintain this finding. 'These include the issuance and implementation of the decommissioning. funding rule and the uncertainty _ of funding for the radiation control program's budget for the current fiscal year. We are also concerned about the growing backlog in licensing actions and the potentially adverse impact on the inspection backlog.. timely issuance of regulations, and other elements of the radiation ~
control program that may occur as 'a result of the need to divert resources to 3
address this backlog.
In your reply to this letter, we would appreciate your addressing these concerns and the State's plan to continue to provide the resources necessary to maintain adequacy and compatibility, including the issuance and implementation of a decommissioning rule.
l I
Enclosure I contains an explanation of our policies and practices for j
reviewing Agreement State programs.
i
\\
1 Patrick Meehan, M.D.
2 NOV 21 1991 is a sumary of the review findings which were discussed with Ms Epstein. As discussed with Ms. Epstein, we are concerned that regulations needed by the State to implement its civil penalty authority still have not been adopted and that, consequently, the State has not completed its escalated enforcement procedures. We request specific responses to this coment and to the other coments in Enclosure 2.
In accordance with NRC practice, I am also enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or othenvise to be made available for public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the NRC staff during the
=
review.
I am looking forward to your coments regarding our findings and your responses to the Enclosure 2 coments.
Sincerely, l-f~
/ Sti M W
/
$1 Carlton Kamerer, Director Office of State Programs t
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Jack Stanton, Assistant Director New Hampshire Division of Public Health Diane Tefft, Chief, New Hampshire Bureau of Radiological Health George Iverson, Director, New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC Thomas T. Martin, Regional Administrator Region I State Liaison Officer State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room
QUESTION 57 k,[ 5.,h.
b y-
~
I Pebruary 27,1984 James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
The review of our Radloactive Materla! Program by Mr. Richard L. Woodruff is certainly appreclated. It la this type of review that assists us in our efforts to maintain an adequate health and safety program In dealln5 with radiation.
5!nce Mr. Woodruff's visit, the Memphis Area office has been staffed and additional personnel have been assigned to the Knoxville and Chattanooga offices. Th!s action,in addition to rather extensive use of the training sponsored by the Nuclear.
Regulatory Commission,is providing us with more personnel having the expertise to f anction in the areas of lleensing and inspecting radioactive materials. As these.
persons' training progresses, I believe, their efficacy in reducing the inspection j
backlog will become more pronounced.
.j My staff is aware of the value placed on your review recommendations and will.
^
endeavor to implement them fully at the earllest possible time.
I Sincerely, JAMES E. WORD Commissioner JEW /CPW/ lag
(
h
[
~
m mn m x -o m me m. m.m,u :.u w n,<o mem i
ij l
Acolication of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Aareement State Radiation Control Procrams" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were published in the Federal Reaister 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.
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 comments are 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 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 comments, 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 confirmed in a subsequent review.
If additional infomation 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.
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.
I ENCLOSURE 1
'(
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS FOR THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIATION CONTROL PROGPAM FOLLOW-UP REVIEW SCOPE OF REVIEW This review was a follow-up review to evaluate the State's corrective actions in response to our coments made following the routine review held in January 1989. There had been a previous follow-up review held during the period February 20-22, 1990.
The follow-up review was conducted during the period September 9-12, 1991 in Concord. The State was represented by Diane Tefft, Chief, Bureau of Radiological Health, Jack Stanton, Assistant Director, Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, and Dennis O'Dowd, Radioactive Materials Section Chief. The NRC was represented by Francis Costello, Acting Regional State Agreements Officer, Region I and William Kane, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region I.
A sumary meeting to present the results of the follow-up review was held on September 12, 1991 with Susan Epstein, Deputy Director, Division of Public Health Services.
CONCLUSIONS The State's program for controlling agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the regulatory programs of the NRC and Agreement States. The compatibility finding is contingent on the completion of the six regulations deemed to be matters of compatibility. The State believes that this rulemaking process is almost complete and that these regulations will be in place in the near future.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS NRC COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The review consisted of a follow-up or. the status of State's actions as a result of NRC coments from the last regular program review conducted in January 1989 and follow-up review conducted in February and October 1990.
Those coments were addressed in a letter to Dr. William Wallace, Director, Division of Public Health Services, dated April 10, 1989 and in a letter to Comissioner M. Mary Mongan, Department of Health and Human Services, dated March 13, 1990. The coments which formed the basis for withholding a finding of adequacy and compatibility were reviewed and found to have been resolved satisfactorily.
ENCLOSURE 2
2 The State estimates that the regulatory changes necessary to maintain compatibility will become effective by the end of October.
These regulatory changes included (1) the transportation rule; (2) the well-logging rule; (3) the radiography quarterly audit and storage survey rule; (4) the glass enamel frit exemption; (5) the certification of dosimetry processors; and (6) the licensee bankruptcy reporting requirement. However, the entire set of the State's regulations expired in August 1991, were re-issued on an emergency basis, and are scheduled to expire again on December 27, 1991. The State is taking actions to re-issue the regulations in time to prevent their expiration on December 27 and this matter was the subject of separate correspondence from the NRC to the State, and the NRC will continue to monitor progress in this area closely.,
According to the State's plan made in response to the previous follow-up review, 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,t.se been prepared.
The legislation providing for the civil penalty authority requires the issuance of these regulations for the State to implement this civil penalty authority.
The State has addressed the budgetary problems addressed in the prior reviews and the State's budget for FY 1992 and 1993 appears to contain adequate funding for the program including operating expenses. However, there remain uncertainties about the fundina of the Bureau's budget for FY 1992 and FY 1993 which threaten the State's progress to date.
IOLLOW-UP REVIEW COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Although this review focused on evaluating changes made in response to our previous findings, related program indicators were also reviewed.
Specific coments and recommendations for the radioactive materials program are as follows:
1.
Enforcement Procedures is a Category 1 Indicator.
Coment While the State has passed the legislation necessary to authorize civil penalties, rulemaking is needed to implement this authority.
Recomendation The State should amend its regulations to include the rules needed to implement its civil penalty authority and the Bureau should finalize its escalated enforcement procedures so that civil penalties and other escalated enforcement sanctions are applied on a consistent and equitable basis.
3 2.
Licensino Procedures is a Category II Indicator Comment The backlog of licensing actions is growing such that, at the current rate of licensing completion, it would take almost a year to eliminate the current backlog.
Recommendation As part of its overall management of the radioactive materials program, the Bureau should evaluate this backlog for the safety significance of the actions, set priorities and goals for the reduction of ti,a backlog, and carefully track staff progress in meeting these goals such that licensing requests are handled in a timely manner.
3.
Inspection Procedures is a Category I Indicator Comment Selected inspection casework was reviewed and the quality of the reports was found to be very good. However, one case was found where a security i
violation was identified at a hospital but management of the hospital was not informed of the violation until several months later.
Furthermore, there were several cases where a licensee did not respond to a Notice of Violation for several months and no follow-up action had occurred.
Recommendation The Bureau should ensure that its staff is aware that violations must be identified to licensee management promptly so that corrective actions are taken in a timely manner. The Bureau should take steps to track more closely the responses of licensees to its Notices of Violation.
f Question 59
(
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Bureau of Environment T.E.R.R.A. BUILDING 150 NINTH AVENUE NORTH NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37219 5404 Carlton Kammerer U.S. IEC Mail Stop 3D-23 SLITP/GpA Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
Pursuant to national policy reg ard ing low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and our broad charge to protect the public health and environment we have amended the licenses of our waste processora.
They were amended to preclude the processing, extended storage, and/or transportation of LLW and materials from in compliance with the National LLW Policy Act.
states not While I recognize that the processing of the waste or materials can result in a much better waste form, thus reducing the hazard. I believe this action is necessary to ensure that the citizens of Tennes see are not subjected to increased risk from these materials because of actions beyond our borders. To ensure fairness and equitable pursuit of our national policy I am requesting that you review the status of any LLW processors you may license or exert influence upon.
A major concern from the regulatory perspective is what happens to the waste once it is processed.
Will it be stored in your state or region?.Will the transportation risk be increased by additional shipments to or from some storage site?
Finally, is it subverting national policy to have one state process, handle and store a non-compliant state's waste?
As you know, Tennessee and the Southeast Compact has been very proactive in\\
su pport ing establishment of a rational process for dealing with LLW issues.
Tennessee believes its processors offer an excellent service to many generators, which results in less waste to handle, in a much safer form for disposal.
However, it is not our intention to allow Tennessee licensed facilities to be utilized in attempts to circumvent national policy or to become a defacto repository for LLW.
i Your comments and support would be most appreciated.
I hope that by arriving at some national consensus we can continue to move forward.
Sincerely, co Michael H. Mobley W
i Director 2
Division of Radiological Health N@
N $
Commissioner, Southeast Low-Level Waste Compact N
p.,
)
HHM:E3129074
- t.
r~
l
- n Qc Ch
]
m W
- -!