ML20137H527
| ML20137H527 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/25/1985 |
| From: | Murley T NRC |
| To: | Wallace W NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512020413 | |
| Download: ML20137H527 (6) | |
Text
_ . _ . _ _ _ _ _
r
) fd f November 25, 1985 William T. Wallace, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Division of Public Health Services State Department of Health and Welfare Health and Welfare Building Hazen Drive Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Dear Dr. Wallace:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. John McGrath, Region I State Agreements Officer held with you on October 4,1985 following our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control program conducted during the period October 1-4, 1985. The review covered the principal administrative and technical aspects of the program and included an examination of the program's legislation and regu-lations, organization, management, administration, personnel, and licensing and compliance actions.
Our review was performed in accordance with the NRC policy defined in the
" Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs."
These guidelines were published in the Federal Register on December 4. 1981 and define 30 indicators that are used for evaluating Agreement State programs. A description of how the indicators are used in reporting the result of program reviews to State management is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
We were pleased to note the increased staff now available for the radioactive l materials program. Your current staffing level of 1.5 staff years (FTE's) per 100 licensees should be adequate to provide full program coverage. Because of j past staffing level problems, however, the inspection backlog has increased. '
We are particularly concerned about three priority I licenses that are overdue by more than 50% (6 months) of the required inspection frequency. Status of Inspection Program is a Category I indicator.
The review of two broad licenses revealed a number of significant deficiencies which we feel the State should immediately address. Additional details on this problem are provided in Enclosure 2. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I indicator. .
During the review, we were provided copies of proposed legislation which would l revise the State's basic radiation control statutes. The proposed revisions would, among other things, provide for civil penalty authority. We believe that such authority is an important factor in an effective enforcement program and we support the efforts to obtain this authority.
' l 8512O20413 851125 ~[ d /
PDR STPRG ESGN
.,. )
William T. Wallace, M.D. , M.P.H. 2 l
With respect to staff salaries, although the New Hampshire staff has been relatively stable over the past few years, current salary levels do not appear to be competitive for the northeast area of the country. The State should examine this area on a continuing basis. Restructuring of positions and salaries may be necessary to avoid turnover increases or difficulties in recruiting qualified staff in the future. Staff continuity is a Category II indicator.
Until the Category I deficiencies described above are satisfactorily addressed, we cannot offer a _ finding of adequacy and compatibility. We would appreciate your review of our coments and receiving your specific plans to address these deficiencies.
Enclosure 2 contains additional comments regarding the technical aspects of our review. These comments were discussed with Ms. Tefft and her staff. You may wish to have Ms. Tefft address these comments and respond directly to us.
In accordance with NRC practice, I am providing a copy of this letter for
- placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
I I appreciate the courtesy and cocperation extended to Mr. McGrath by you and 1
your staff during the meeting.
Sincerely, or Minni :;tgned by Thn.G E. Murley Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As Stated Distribution:
TMurley cc: D. Tefft JAllan G. W. Kerr, OSP JMcGrath NRC Public Document Room DNussbaumer State Public Document Room SP01 1
( h rf r qks k urley gip /6/85 If/l85 1l/ 85 1p }\/85 }l 85 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
. - . , - , . . - . ._~ .
I Enclosure 1 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 December 4,1981 as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 30 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 2 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 comment made. If no significant Category I coments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. If at least one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority basis. When more than one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical. The NRC would request an immediate response, and may perform a follow-up review of the program within six months. If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement. Category II coments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public. The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
. ENCLOSURE 2 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I. Technical Advisory Committees is a Category II Indicator.
Comment The State Radiation Advisory Committee, which membership includes representatives of the regulated community, does not have procedures for avoiding conflicts of interest.
Recommendation We recommend that procedures be established which would preclude actual or apparent conflicts of interest in the advice given by members of the committee.
II. Quality of Emergency Planning is a Category I Indicator. The following comment is considered minor in significance.
Comment The State's emergency plan for responding to non-reactor radiation incidents in the State has not been updated in a number of years.
As a result, the plan does not reflect current organizations and program procedures.
Recommendation We believe the State's " Nuclear Accident and Radiological Incident Control Plan" should be reviewed and revised as appropriate to reflect current organization and procedures. The plan should define the responsibilities and actions to be taken by State agencies including identification of persons responsible for initiating response actions and should address communication procedures to assure that all appro-priate agencies are notified. We also recommend that periodic drills be performed to test the plan. The plan should be reviewed annually by program staff for adequacy and to determine that content remains current.
. 2 III. Laboratory Support is a Category II Indicator.
Comment We are pleased to find that the State's inhouse laboratory program is now fully staffed. We noted that laboratory procedures, including quality control procedures, are needed and that these are being prepared.
Recommendation We recommend that the State finalize its laboratory procedures. We believe that the State should consider participation in an outside quality control program such as that offered by EPA.
IV. Office Equipment and Support Services is a Category II Indicator.
Comment l We were pleased to note that the radiation control program now has a word processor to assist in the administration of the program.
Information on program functions is just now beginning to be placed on the system.
Recommendation We recommend that the word processing system be used in the preparation of licenses, enforcement correspondence, and program statistics such as status of the inspection program.
V. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator. The following comment is considered significant.
Comment The review of one broad academic license revealed a number of significant deficiencies including: iodination procedures which appear to require the routine use of KI as a thyroid blocking agent (in lieu of engineered controls for limiting exposure to radiciodine); lack of procedures for approving users; inadequate training program; inadequate bioassay procedures; no descriptions of a survey program; as well as other deficiencies of lesser health and safety significance. A broad medical license was found to contain similar deficiencies.
1
. 3 Recommendation We recommend that the broad academic licensee be required to submit a more thorough application to assure that program procedures referenced in the license reflect the content expected for a program of this scope as detailed in NRC's " Standard Review Plan for Type A Licenses of Broad Scope" and Regulatory Guide 10.5. With respect to the broad medical license, our review of this file revealed that a license of broad scope is probably not necessary for this licensee. The State should reissue this license as a limited group medical license or, if the State cannot take unilateral action, encourage the licensee to request such an amendment.
If the licensee wishes to retain the broad scope license, the licensee should be required to provide justification and submit an application describing program procedures appropriate for a license of broad scope.
VI. Inspection Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
Comment The State's Compliance Manual has not been updated in a number of years.
Consequently, much of the manual does not always reflect current policy -
or practices.
Recommendation We recommend that the Compliance Manual be updated to reflect current policies and p ocedures. The section regarding civil penalties should be amended once legislative authority is obtained.
l
-. . -_ .. . __ .