Text

Forwards, Integrated Matls Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaire, for Review of New Hampshire Program Scheduled for Wk of 970819-22
	ML20140C393
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/29/1997
From:	Maupin C; NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Tefft D; NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
References
	NUDOCS 9706090235
	Download: ML20140C393 (44)
	v • d • e

_ .-

~~

yoarooy 1

f N 'a UNITED STATES

g 3j

'f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 206&Hm01 e%

/ May 29,1997 1

Ms. Diane E. Tefft, Administrator Radiological Health Bureau Division of Public Health Services I Health and Welfare Building 6 Hazen Drive i Concord, NH 03301 6527

Dear Ms. Tefft:

l As you are aware, NRC is using the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program 1 (IMPEP) for the evaluation of Agreement State Programs. Per our discussion, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the New Hampshire program scheduled for the week of August 19-22,1997. The team willinclude Craig Gordon, Region i State Agreements i Officer, NRC, and William Passetti, Manager, Radioactive Materials Program, State of 1 Florida.

Enclosed is the document, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaire." The questionnaire is being furnished to you on a computer disk as well as in printed form. I ask that you send your responses by internet: chm @nrc. gov or return the disk to me by July 18,1997. I am sending the document and disk in advance of the August 19,1997 IMPEP review in order to provide time for you to allocate the staff resources necessary to complete the document by the due date.

Part A of the questionnaire contains questions on the common performance indicators.

Part P, contains questions on the non-common performance indicators for Agreement States. In addition, as you requested, enclosed is a copy of the questionnaire you submitted in preparation for the August 1994 review and pilot IMPEP review.

\

c s B EE 090039 NRR RLE CENTEP. 04PY 9706090235 970529 PDR STPRG ESGNH

-- N b h PDR ..

D. E. TGff t !

I request that you set up an appointment with the appropriate State Senior Management I Official to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of th'e New Hampshire ,or: gram on l

' August 22,1997. j If you have questions, please call me at 301-415-2312.

Sincerely,

. l Cardelia H. Maupin, Sr. Project Ma ager Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/o enclosure:

l Jeffrey B. Schaub, Director Office of Health Management Hubert J. Miller, Regional. Administrator, Region I, NRC Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs, NRC cc w/ enclosure:

Craig Z. Gordon, State Agreements Officer, Region i William A. Passetti, Manager, Radioactive Materials Program Bureau of Radiation Control, Department of Health

D. E. Tcfft s I request that you set up an appointment with the appropriate State Senior Management Official to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the New Hampshire program on-August 22,1997.

if you have questions, please call me at 301-415-2312.

Sincer ely, l

Oricin':.1 Sicned by Cardolia S.upin Cardelia H. Maupin, Sr. Project Manager Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/o enclosure:

Jeffrey B. Schaub, Director Office of Health Management Hubert J. Miller, Regional Administrator, Region I, NRC Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs, NRC cc w/ enclosure:

l Craig Z. Gordon, State Agreements Officer, Region I

)

1 William A. Passetti, Manager, Radioactive Materials Program

{

Bureau of Radiation Control, Department of Health '

i Distribution:

DIR RF lDCD (SP01) i SDroggitis .PDRJYES C NO )

NH File DOCUMENT NAME: R H p G:\Indicate CHMin the

\lMPEP\DjRt ta ,.c.i a copy of this document, box: *k . h without attachm pn to uro "E" == Copy with attachment / enclosure *N" - No copy OFFICE glN O W Dh }O s@, Q yj l NAME CMau(i@:fi PHLohaus' $

RLEIangart,

,DATE 05//J)/97 05/(1/97 05/2"1/97 OSP FILI CODE:< SP-AG-1#

i

i Approved by OMB 3 !

No. 3150-0183 ;

Expires 4/30/98 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE Name of State: New Ham) shire j Reporting. Period: Monti XX.-199X. to Month XX. 199X 1

)

A. - COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I, Status of Materials Insoection Proaram :

4 i

. 1. Please prepare a table identifying the licenses with inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency set ,

out in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95). The l list should include initial inspections that are overdue.

i

Insp. Frequency

, Licensee Name (Years) Due Date Months 0/D i

2. Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If so. please describe the plan or provide a written

[ copy with your response to this questionnaire.

3. Please identify individual licensees or grou)s of licensees the o State / Region is ins)ecting less frequently tian called for in NRC F Inspection Manual Clapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95) and state the

reason for the change.

4- ,

J 4. How many licensees filed reciprocity notices in the reporting j period?

a. Of these, how many were industrial radiography, well-logging or other users with inspection frequencies of three years or less?

2 Estimated burden per' response to comply with this voluntary collection request: 60 hours6.944444e-4 days 0.0167 hours 9.920635e-5 weeks 2.283e-5 months . Forward comments regarding burden estimate to the l Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20555-0001. and to the Paperwork Reduction Project ;

(3150-0052). Office of Management and Budget. Washington. DC 20503. NRC may '

.not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless-it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

h'

b. For those identified in 4a. how many reciprocity inspections were conducted? '

5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers were performed?

6. For NRC Regions, did you establish numerical goals for the number of inspections to be performed during this review period? If so, please describe your goals, the number of inspections actually performed, and the reasons for any differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections performed.

II. Technical Staffina and Trainina

7. Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested format below, of the professional (technical) person- '

years of effort applied to the agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the name. position, and, for Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in the following areas: administration, materials licensing & compliance, emergency response. LLW. U-mills, other. If these regulatory responsibilities are divided between offices, the table should be l consolidated to include all personnel contributing to the !

radioactive materials program. Include all vacancies and identify all senior personnel assigned to monitor work of junior personnel.

If consultants were used to carry out the program's radioactive materials responsibilities, include their efforts. The table i heading should be: i l

RAN POSITION AREA 0F EFFORT l

8. Please 3rovide a listing of all new professional personnel hired I since t1e last review. indicate the degree (s) they received, if applicable, and additional training and years of experience in health physics or other disciplines, if appropriate. l

9. Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the qualification requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection staff (for NRC. Inspection Manual Chapters 1245 and 1246: for Agreement States, please describe your qualifications requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.

10. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS l program during this period.

I 2

III. Technical Ouality of Licensina Actions

11. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued. received a major amendmerit, terminated or renewed in this period.

12. Please identify any new or amended licenses added or removed from the list of licensees requiring emergency plans?

13. Discuss any variances in licensing policies and 3rocedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during tie review period.

14. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, u during the reporting period? pdates, policy memoranda, etc.)

15. For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type. any renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.

IV. Technical Quality of Insoections

16. What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period?

17. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period. Include:

Suoervisor Insoector License Cat. Dat_q

18. Describe internal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of inspectors in the field. If supervisory accompaniments were documented. please provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment.

19. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are all instruments properly calibrated at the present time?

l l 3

{

t V. Resoonses to Incidents and Alleaations j t

20. Please provide a list of the most sianificant incidents (i.e., ,

medical misadministration, overexposures. lost and abandoned I' sources. : incidents requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months or less notification, etcJ that occurred in the Region / State during.the review period. For l Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to i NRC'need not be repeated. The list should be in the following j format:

UCENSEE NAME LICENSE # DATE OF INCIDENT / REPORT TYPE OF !

INCIDE

21. During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source failure or approved operating 3rocedures that were !

deficient? If so, how and when were other State /NRC licensees who might ,

be affected notified? ,

)

a. For States, was timely notification made to the Office of State Programs? For Regions, was an appropriate and timely PN generated? -

22. For incidents involving failure of equipment or sources, was information on the incident provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency? Please provide details for each case.

23. In the period covered by this review, were there any cases involving

-possible wrongdoing that were reviewed or are presently undergoing

-review? If so, please describe the circumstances for each case.

24. Identify any changes to your procedures .for handling allegations that occurred during the period of this review.

a- For Agreement States, please identify any allegations referred to your program by the NRC that have not been closed.

VI. General

25. Please prepare a summary of the status' of the State's or Region's actions taken in response to the comments and recommendations following the last i review.

26. Provide a brief description of your program's strengths and weaknesses.

I These strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of i l successes, problems or difficulties which occurred during this review :

period.

j i

i j

t l

i B. NON COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I. Reaulations and leaal Authority' j

27. Please list'all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control program (RCP).

28. Are your regulations subject to a " Sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain and include the next expiration date for your regulations.

29. Please com)lete the enclosed table based on NRC chronology of amendments.

Identify tiose that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and discuss any actions being taken to adopt them.

30. If you have not adopted all amendments within three years from the date of NRC rule promulgation, briefly describe your State's procedures for amending regulations in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC.

showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.

II. Sealed Source and Device Proaram' l 31. Prepare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed i sources and devices issued during the review period. The table heading ~ ;

l should be: !

SS&D Manufacturer. Type of Registry Distributor or Device Number Custom User or Source

! l l

l 32. What guides, standards and procedures are used to evaluate registry

! applications?

33. Please include information on the following questions in Section A. as l they apply to the Sealed Source and Device Program:

Technical Staffing and Training - A.II.7-10 l Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.11. A.III.13-14 l Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 i' III. Low-level Waste Proaram l 34. Please include information on the following questions in Section A. as they apply to the Low-level Waste Program:

Status of Materials Inspection Program - A.I.1-3. A.I.6 l

Technical Staffing and Training - A.II.7-10 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.11. A.III.13-14 Technical Quality of Inspections - A.IV.16-19

, Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 5

i 1 i

IV, Uranium Mill Proaram

35. Please include information on the following questions in Section A. as they apply to the Uranium Mill Program:

Status of Materials Inspection Program - A.I.1-3. A.I.6 Technical Staffing and Training - A.II.7-10 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.11. A.III.13-14 Technical Quality of Inspections - A.IV.16-19 Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 I

l l

l 1

i i

6

5 i .

l ji

, APPENDIX C EVALUATION OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM PART I PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND STATE QUESTIONNAIRE UPDATE 1 Name of State Program: New Hampshire

, Reporting Period: June 1992 to August 1994 j !. [EGISLATION AND REGULATIONS 4

j A. Leoal Authority (Category I)

! NRC Guidelines: Clear statutory authority should exist, a

designating a State radiation control agency and providing for promulgation of regulations, licensing, inspection and enforcement.

i States regulating uranium or thorium recovery and associated

wastes pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) must have statutes enacted to establish clear j authority for the State to carry out the requirements of UMTRCA.

1 States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities must have statutes that provide i authority for the issuance of regulations for low-level waste management and disposal. The statutes should also provide .

I regulatory program authority and provide for a system of checks to '

l

) demonstrate that conflicts of interest between the regulatory ~

j function and the developmental and operational functions shall not ;

i occur. (The level of separation (e.g., separate agencies) should l j be determined for each State individually. In selecting this !

! level, each State should have a system of checks to demonstrate i that conflicts of interest between the regulatory function and developmental and operational functions will not occur.)

l Questions:

i.

I. What changes were made to the State's statutory authority to i regulate agreement materials, low level waste disposal, or uranium mill operations in the reporting period?

- None

2. Are your regulations subject to a ' sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain and include the next expiration date for your regulations.

- Yes, every 6 years.

It varies, each rule adopted has its own 6 year life.

4

~ ~ ^ ~"

.--- -- . - . _ - __ ---..2.--- -- -

w,

i i

~

. New Hampshire C-2 7 B. Status and Comnatibility of Reaulations (Category I) e NRC Guidelines: The State must have regulations essentially identical to 10 CFR Part 19, Part 20 (radiation dose standards, effluent limits, waste manifest rule and certain other parts),

Part 61 (technical definitions and requirements, performance objectives, financial assurances) and those required by UMTRCA, as implemented by Part 40. The State should adopt other regulations to maintain a high degree of uniformity with NRC regulations. For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but no later than 3 years. The RCP should have established procedures for effecting appropriate amendments to State regulations in a timely manner, normally within 3 years of adoption by NRC. Opportunity should be provided for the public to comment on proposed regulation changas (requir6d by UMTRCA for uranium mill regulation.) Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, opportunity should be provided for the NRC to comment on draft changes in State regulations.

Questions:

1. What is the effective date of the last compatibihity-related amendment to the State's regulations?

- 12/20/93 Decommissioning Rule

2. Referring to the latest NRC chronology of amendments, identify those that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and discuss actions being taken to adopt them.

Rule NRC RULE A/S RULE NH PREDICTED EFFECTIVE DUE DATE DATE & STATUS Emergency Plan

4/7/90 4/7/93 6/95; in draft form Safety Requirements for IR* 1/10/91 1/10/94 6/95; in draft '

form Part 20 6/20/91 6/20/94 10/94; Draft in 6th revision Incident Notification 10/15/91 10/14/94 6/95: No action QM 1/27/R 1/27/95 6/25; No Action

Internal licensing procederes are in place to ensure licensees adhere to provisions in these rules.

It is extremely difficult to change regulations in NH.

First, the New Hampshire rules dictating the rulemaking _

- - - - m , . - ,

. New Hampshire C-3

- process are extremely prescriptive and are not geared toward

{ governing complex scientific endeavors such as radiation control. Second, each NH rule expires exactly six years >

> after enactment and must be resubmitted. Third, each fee change, reg guide and license concit on must be published,

' also with a six-year expiration date. The current process is so extensive that it requires the equivalent of one FTE

just to keep up with changes in the NRC rules, reg guides, i and license conditions. Each time NRC makes a change, the

NH program must start an extensive promulgation effort. For i example, the process of changing the State's equivalent of

10 CFR 20 began in January 1993, and now has a target date i of October 1994 because of the numerous objections and i additional rewrites primarily due to the Administrative

! Rules Committee objections.

) 3. Identify the person responsible for developing new or l

, amended regulations affecting agreement materials.

i - Diane Tefft, Administrator, has primary responsibility i .

but all staff in rad. material and X-ray sections are j involved.

II. ORGANIZATION i

! Under the Appendix B ti " a sheet provided at the end of this document,

j. please enclose copies cf sur organization charts as follows:

1

' a) organization chart (s) showing the position of the radiation control program (RCP) within the State organization and its i relationship to the Governor, other State and local RCPs (if

]

any), and comparable health and safety programs.

b) RCP internal organization charts. If applicable, include regional offices and contract agencies.

All charts should be current, dated, and include names and titles for

! all positions.

- See Appendix B.

! A. Location of the Radiation Control Procram Within the State Orcanization (Cateaory II)

]

~

}

NRC Guidelines: The RCP should be located in a State organization i parallel with comparable health and safety programs. The Program i Director should have access to appropriate levels of State management. Where regulatory responsibilities are divided between State agencies, clear understandings should exist as to division of responsibilities and requirements for coordination.

5 i ,

2

j '- New Hampshire C-4 i

- . Questions:

1. period, did the management, program

! DuringthereportinftheRCPwithintheStateorganization name, or location o j change?

- No

. B. Internal Orannization of the RCP (Category II)

NRC Guidelines: The RCP should be or anized with the view toward j achieving an acceptable degree of sta f efficiency, place i appropriate emphasis on major program functions, and provide

- specific lines of supervision from program management for the

execution of program policy. Where regional offices or other i government agencies are utilized, the lines gf comunication and ,

l administrative control between these offices and the central

! office (Program Director) should be clearly drawn to provide

! uniformity in licensing and inspection policies, procedures and supervision.

Questions:

1. What changes occurred in the organization of the RCP during the reporting period?

- Several staff changes as follows:

- Wayne Johnston was promoted to Supervisor, Radiation Machine Section (HP II). 10/9/92

- Wayne's former HP I position was filled on 1/22/93 by Kathy McAllister.

- Two new HP I positions were created and filled by Mario Iannaccone - 6/12/92 and Deborah Russell - 8/21/92.

- A new Laboratory Scientist III - Radiochemist position was created, funded and filled by Twila Kenna on 4/1/94.

This position is for other than utility associated duties (e.g., licensee close out surveys, environmental monitoring, analysis of inspection wipes, instrument calibration,etc.)

2. If changes occurred, how have they affected the RCP and its effectiveness?

- These individuals are all undergoing training at various stages. The HP's train in both rad material and X-ray.

. - l

. New Hampshire C-5 3"

4

< C. Leoal Assistance (Category II) !

t ~

i NRC Guidelines: Legal staff should be assigned to assist the RCP or procedures should exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously. Legal staff should be knowledgeable regarding the 4

RCP program, statutes, and regulations.

l Questions:

l 1. If legal assistance was utilized during the reporting 1

period, briefly describt: the circumstances.

- Not specifically, other than rule making.

2. Was the legal assistance satisfactory during this period? '

l l If not, what were the problems? i

- The overall problem is that the Attorney General's Office ;

, is becoming less and less available for the types of 1

, questions / problems the BRH has (e.g., collection of $60 for an unregistered X-ray machine). Instead our discussions are with Public Health's legal coordinator l who is our pass through to the AG's office.

l D. Technical Advisory Comittees (Category II)

I. NRC Guidelines: Technical Comittees, . Federal Agencies, and other 3 resource organizations should be used to extend staff capabilities for unique or technically complex problems. A State Medical

! Advisory Comittee should be used to provide broad guidance on the i uses of radioactive drugs in or on humans. The Comittee should i represent a wide spectrum of medical disciplines. The Comittee i should advise the RCP on policy matters and regulations related to use of radioisotopes in or on humans. Procedures should be developed to avoid conflict of intarest, even though Comittees are advisory. This does not mean that representatives 6f the regulated comunity should not serve on advisory comittees or not be used as consultants.

Questions:

1. Please list the names, affiliations, and terms of the technical coenittee(s) members.

Diane Tefft serves as Technical Secretary of the State Radiation-Advisory Committee. The names of the Comittee members are as follows:

4 New Hampshire C-6 i

iy _

i NAME AFFILIATION / SPECIALTY TERM EXPIRES l

{

I Kenneth DeHart, Jr., M.D. Lakes Region General 10/14/95 .

! Hospital (Medicine) !

l Dr. Richard Fralick Plymouth State College 10/14/97

] (Life Science) l David C. Frost, D.M.D. Private Practice 10/14/97 (Dentistry)

Rep. Philip Lobombarde (Industry) 10/14/94

) C.G Leutzinger, M.D. Elliot Hospital (Medicine) 10/14/94 I James P. Tarzia, CHP North Atlantic Energy 10/14/97 i Services Corporation j (Physical Science)

) KEnneth E. Mayo, P.E. (Industry) 10/14/95 l

Robert Normandin, Ph.D. (Life Science) 10/14/94 i Rep. Charles Vogler (Physical Science) 10/14/95

{' 2. If an advisory comittee or consultant was used during the i reporting period, briefly describe each circumstance (i.e.,

! the subject, the need, the result, and the manner obtained - i by meeting, phone call, or letter).

I j - Recently a member of the Committee was asked to review a j calculation presented in an application to be used for

instrument calibration. i

- Also, asked for opinions in " supervision" for medical !

! licensees.

- We also frequently discuss current topics with Comittee members. ;

! - Provided assistance in the evaluation of adequacy of

training and experience for a proposed authorized user ,

l physician amendment request for a medical use license. i l E. contractual Assistance (Category II)

NRC Guidelines: Because of the diversity and complexity of low-i level radioactive waste disposal licensing and regulation, States j regulatirg the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in i permanent disposal facilities should have procedures and j mechanisms in place for acquisition of technical and vendor

services necessary to support these functions that are not

otherwise available within the RCP. The RCP should avoid the

{ -

selection of contractors which have been selected to provide 1

4

New Hampshire C-7

, services associated with the LLW facility development or operations.

(

j - Not applicable.

III. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

A. Quality of Emeraency Plannino (Category I)

NRC Guidelines: The State RCP should have a written plan for response to such incidents as spills, overexposures, transportation accidents, fire or explosion, theft, etc. The Plan should define the responsibilities and actions to be taken by State Agencies. The Plan should be specific as to persons responsible for initiating response actions, conducting operations and cleanup. Emergency communication procedures should be adequately established with appropriate local, county and State agencies. Plans should be distributed to appropriate persons and agencies. NRC should be provided the opportunity to comment on the Plan while in draft form. The plan should be reviewed annually by Program staff for adequacy and to determine that content is current. Periodic drills should be performed to test the plan.

l Questions:

I l 1. Other than the communications list, when was the emergency plan last revised?

- The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) was revised in June of 1994. !

- The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Plan (PNS) was last updated July 1993.

- The Radiological Incident Plan (RIP) was last reviewed and revised in the summer of 1993. The earlier version was dated 12/30/87.

2. If the plan was revised since the last review, what changes

were made?

- Forms have been updated. Lessons learned from exercises l and drills have been applied. We have moved closer to a single plan and set of procedures for both VY and SS.

EPA 400 was incorporated.

- The RIP was completely re-organized and re-drafted.

- An Initiator's Book was developed to guide early actions regardless of the type of radiological emergency.

l l

I

New Hampshire C-8

. 3. If the plan was substantially revised during the reporting period, was the NRC provided the opportunity to coment on

\- the revision while it was in draft form?

- The NHRERP was completely reprinted as Revision 7 and forwarded to FEMA for their review and approval. Their exercise reports generate many of the changes. The NRC was not asked to coment.

i

4. When was the emergency communication list last reviewed or i revised?

l l - The emergency communication list, the ' phone book," is l updated and re-printed quarterly by the Office of l Emergency Management. It is a complete listing of response organizations and members. The most recent version is dated June 1994.

- The Initiator Book is updated as-needed; the most recent updating took place June 29, 1994.

5. When and how was the plan last tested? .

- Every year N.H. has a full FEMA evaluated exercise for

, either VY (April 1993) or SS (December 1994) that is l preceded by a dress rehearsal, a combined functional

drill and specific skill training activities. The RCP l . also participates in the VY and SS yearly NRC exercises.

The next VY NRC rehearsal will be August 19, 1994.

l B. Rudatt (Category II) i NRC Guidelines: Operating funds should be sufficient 1o support program needs such as staff travel necessary to conduct an effective compliance program, including routine inspections, follow-up or special inspections (including pre-licens'ng visits) and responses to incidents and other emergencies, instrumentation and other equipment to support the RCP, administrative costs in operating the program including rental charges, printing costs, laboratory services, computer and/or word processing support, preparation of correspondence, office equipment, hearing costs, i etc., as appropriate. l l

States regulating the disposal of low-level r&ficactive waste i facilities should have adequcte budgetary resources to allow for I changes in funding needs during the LLW facility life cycle. -

l After_ appropriations, the sources of program funding should be stable and protected frora competition from or invasion by other State programs. Principal operating funds should be from sources which provide contihuity and reliability, i.e., general tax, license fees, ate. Supplemental funds may be obtained through l contracts, cash grants, etc. j l

l l

i

. New Ha2pshire C-9 o Questions:

i ,

1. Show the amount for funds for the RCP for the current fiscal '

year obtained from:

a. State general fund

- $221,172

b. Fees

- $140,000

c. Federal grants and contracts (identify)

- FDA-HCFA samography grant - $38,782

- EPA-State Indoor Radon Grant yr. 5 - $157,631

- FDA-MQSA (MamograpSj Quality Standards Act) $40,807 ,

Proposal sulmitted U6/94 L

d. Other

- Utility funds - $426,907

e. Bureau Total (FY 95 Sudgeted)

- $959,982

2. Show the total amounts in the current RCP budget allocated for the following /,1f contract costs are incurred, e.g, in LLW regulation, please include):

a. Administration

- 552,454

b. Radioactive materials

- $235,S84

c. X-ray

- $239,023 -

d. Environmental surveillance

- (Radiochemistry) $137,162

e. Emergency planning

- $197,380

f. LLW regulation (regulation only, do not include site development)

\

O New Hampshire C-10

- $2,766 l{

l g. U-mill regulation

) - None

! h. Other (radon, non-ionizing, operator credentialing, etc.

Please identify).

! - Radon total = $315,262 (9 50% matching funds)

1. Total: Equhls total budgeted funds l

i

- FY 95 - $959,982

3. What percentage of your radioactive materials program is

supported by fees? ,

i

! - Total fees - $140,000 (Approximately $105,000 X-ray and j $35,000 rad materials) Fees fund about 31% of the combined j Rad material /X-ray programs.

1

! 4. Discuss any changes in program funding that occurred during

.the reporting period, the reasons for the changes (new programs, change in emphasis, statewide reduction, fee cost recovery percentage. **c.), and how the changes affected the program.

- In FY 94 an increase in required revenue from fees brought about a change in the fee schedule.

5. Overall, is funding sufficient to support all of the program needs? If not, what are the problem areas?

- Yes C. Laboratory Suecort (Category, II)

NRC Guidelines: The RCP should have the laboratory support capability in-house, or readily available through established procedures, to conduct bionssays, analyze environmental samples, analyze samples collected by inspectors, etc., on a priority established by the RCP.

In addition, States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste facilities in permanent disposal facilities should have access to laboratory support for radiological and non-radiological analyses associated with the licensing and regulation of low-level waste disposal, including soils testing, testing of environmental media, testing of engineering properties of wa:;te packages.and waste forms, and testing of other engineering materials used in the disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

Access to laboratory support should be available on an "as needed" basis for nonradiological analyses to confirm licensees' and

~. -

l l, New Hampshire C-11 applicants' programs and conditions for nonradiological testing should be prescribed in plans or procedures.

Questions:

1. Describe changes in your laboratory support, such as new instruments, cutbacks, etc., in this period.

! - We hired a lab scientist (radiochemist) for the rad

material program. Lab is being remodeled to conta 4 a separate room as a radiochemistry wet lab.

. 2. Have there been problems in obtaining timely and accurate lab results? If yes, discuss the circumstances.

- No, the lab is part of the BRH.

D. Administrative Procedures (Category II) 1 i

NRC Guidelines: The RCP should establish written internal !

procedures to assure that the staff performs its duties as !

required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices. These procedures should address internal processing of license applications, inspection policies, decommissioning and license termination, fee collection, contacts with communication media, conflict of interest policies for employees, exchange of information and other functions required of

the program. Administrative procedures are in addition to the

technical procedures utilized in licensing, and inspection and i enforcement.

Questions:

Briefly list the changes, such as new procedures, l 1. i updates, policy memoranda, etc., made in your written '

administrative procedures during the reporting period.

Include internal processing of license applications, l inspection policies, decommissioning and license I termination, fee collection, contacts with media, conflict of interest policies for employees, and exchange of information procedu.res.

- A new task planning procedure was implemented to better achieve the Bureau objectives. Licensing review and incident document control procedures were written or revised Copies of the revised procedures have been assembled for .

review purposes.

E. Manaaement (Category II)

NRC Guidelines: Program management should receive periodic reports from the staff on the status of regulatory actions (backlogs, problem cases, inquiries, regulation revisions). RCP

New Hampshire C-12 ir managerant should periodically assess workload trends, resources

( and changes in legislative and regulatory responsibilities to forecast needs for increased staff, equipment, services and ,

i fundings. Program management should perform periodic reviews of l l selected license cases handled by each reviewer and document the !

results. Complex licenses (major manufacturers, low-level ;

! radioactive waste disposal facilities, large scope-Type A Broad, j l potential for significant releases to the environment) should 4 receive second party review (supervisory, cosnittee, consultant).

j Supervisory review of inspections, reports and enforcement actions should also be performed. !

i For the implementation of very complex licensing actions, such as ;

! initial license review, license renewals and licensing actions '

f associated with a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, i- there should be an overall Project Manager responsible for the !

coordination and compilation of the diverse technical reviews l l necessary for the completion of the licensing action. The Project i Manager should have training or experience in one or more of the i main disciplines related to the technical reviews which the

Project Manager will be coordinating such as health physics,

engineering, earth science or environmental science. When

! regional offices or other government agencies are utilized, ,

l program management should conduct periodic audits of these !

offices. ;

Cuestions:

1. How many management reviews of license cases were performed in this period?

- We are a small program and management (i.e., the RAM supervisor) reviews or gets involved with at least 80% of I license cases. '

2. Were all license reviewers included in the cases selected for management review? If not, explain.

- Yes

3. What audits were made of regional and contract offices?

- N/A F. Office Eauinment and sunoort services (Category !!)

NRC Guidelines: The RCP should have adequate secretarial and clerical support. Automatic typing and Automatic Data Processing and retrieval capability should be available to larger (300-400 ;

licenses) programs. Similar services should be available to regional offices, if utilized. States should have a document management system that is capable of organizing the volume and diversity of materials associated with licensing and inspection of 4

i

New Hampshire C-13 l ,

radioactive materials. Professional staff should not be used for i

7 4

i.u fee collection and other clerical duties.

Questions:

1. Has the secretarial and clerical support been adequate

during this period? If not, explain.

- Clerical support works for the Bureau Administrator and l Bureau. Clerical support appears to be adequate.

! G. Public Information (Category II)

NRC Suidelines: Inspection and licensing files should be available to the public consistent with State administrative procedures. It is desirable, however, that there be provisions j for protecting from public disclosure proprietary information and information of a clearly personal nature. Opportunity for public

hearings should be provided in accordance with UMTRCA and applicable State administrative procedure laws during the process i of major licensing actions associated with UMTRCA and low-level j radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.

) Questions:

, 1. Have changes occurred in the manner in which you handle public information?

l - Not really. The edict is that all press inquiries go the DPHS press person. These can be delegated back. Lots

depends on who is in the Director's office as to how !

! liberal the policy is. !

i J

IV. PERSONNEL

A. Qualifications of Technical Staff (Category II) j

\

l NRC Guidelines: Professional staff should have a bachelor's

' degree or equivalent training in the physical and/or life

' sciences. Additional training and experience in radiation protection for senior personnel including the director of the

! radiation protection program should be commensurate with the type of licenses issued and inspected by the State.

i l For States regulating uranium n111s and sill tailings, staff i i

training and experience should also include hydrology, geology, and struc_tural engineering. (Additional guidance is provided in the Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through j Agreement (46 FR 7540, 36969 and 48 FR 33376)). l i

For programs which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive

, waste in permanent facilities, staff training and experience j should include civil or mechanical engineering, geology, ;

b 1

i

how Hampshire C-I r, 4

ij hydrology, and_ other earth science, ud environmental science. In j q both types of materials, staff training and experience guidelines '

i i apply to available contractors and resources in State agencies !

other_ than the RCP.

1 Written job descriptions should be prepared so that professional qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily identified.

} Questions:

1. Please list all new professional personnel, indicating the

degree they received, if applicable, and additional training t

and years of experience in health physics.

ll .

l Summary of Training and Han Deareefs) runerience in Health Physics l- Mario Iannaccone B.S., 1979 -

NH DPHS/BRH health

! major Biology physicist (0JT) since

!- minor Chemistry 6/12/92 to present )

University of Lowell Licensing Procedures Course, NRC/ ASP, 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months , 6/13/94 - 6/17/94 Industrial Radiography Course, Amersham /NRC-ASP, 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months , 6/6/94 - 6/10/94

- Applied Health Physics Course, ORISE, 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months , 2/1/93 - 2/22/93

- Radiological Emergency Response Operations Course, FEMA, 80 hours9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months , 9/29/92 -

10/10/92 D.O.D. Portsmouth Naval I Shipyard - Article 108/NAVSEA 389-288 'A' Qualified Radiological Control Monitor, 4 years 1/88 -5/92 ,

Deborah Russell B.A., 1985 -

NH DPHS/BRH health major Microbiology physicist (0JT) since minor Chemistry 8/21/92 to present University of New Hampshire -

Licensing Procedures Course NRC/ACP, 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months , 6/13/94

- 6/17/94 i

4 w , , -

n - w-- -,

.. ...~ _ - . .._ _ - - - .. - _ . - - . . . - . . - . ..

(

j j- New Hampshire C-15

!. - Applied Health Physics g Course, ORISE, 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months , 7/19/93 - 8/20/93

- Radiological Emergency

~

1 Response Operations Course, i FEMA, 80 hours9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months , 1/13/93 -

j 1/22/93 Kathleen McAllister B.S. 1977 - NH DPHS/BRH health

major Biological physicist (0JT) since

Sciences 1/22/93 to present

minor Biochemistry i University of New - Industrial Radiography i Hampshire Course, Amersham /NRC-ASP, i

. 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months , 5/9/94 - 5/13/94 ,

A.A., 1975 j 4 major Liberal Arts - Radiological Emergency 1

?

Response Operations Course, i FEMA, 80 hours9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months , 5/1/94 - l 5/8/94

, - Applied Health Physics Course, ORISE, 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months ,

2/6/94 - 3/11/94

- Management & Disposal of !

Radioactive Waste Course, l Harvard School of Public '

Health, 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months , 7/6/92 -

g 7/10/92 4

- H.P. Technologist, LLRW

) Management, New England I L

Medical Center, Boston 7/92 - 1/93

- Article 108/NAVSEA 389-0288 "A" Qualif1 cation Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,

. 2248 hours0.026 days 0.624 hours 0.00372 weeks 8.55364e-4 months , 7/89 - 12/91 :

Twila Kenna B.A. - NH DPHS/BRH radiochemist i

major Zoology (0JT) 4/1/94 to present '

University of New Hampshire - Biological research and I experimentation involving M.S., Animal Science radionuclides; RAI uses 4 University of New Harvard University, 3/82 - i

', Hampshire 8/87 i Ph.D., Dairy Science - Laboratory use of 4

Virginia Polytechnic radionuclides, Virginia

l- . .

t '

. New Hampshire C-16 l Institute and State Polytechnic Institute and University State University, g/78 - 12/81 B. Staffino Level (Category II)

NRC Guidelines: Professional staffing level should be

, approximately 1-1.5 wrson-year per 100 licenses in effect. RCP i

must not have less t$an two professionals available with training and experience to operate RCP in a way which provides continuous

coverage and continuity. The two professionals available to i operate the RCP should not be supervisory or management personnel.

For States regulating uranium mills and mill tailings current indications are that 2-2.75 professional person-years' of effort, including consultants, are needed to process a new mill license (including in situ mills) or major renewal, to meet requirements j of Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1g78.

, States which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste 4

in permanent disposal facilities should allow a baseline RCP staff effort of 3-4 professional technical person-years (in addition to the two professionals for the basic RCP indicated in the first bullet of this indicator). However, in some cases, the level of site activity may be such that a lower level is adequate, particularly if contractor support is on call. In any event, staff resources should be adequate to conduct inspections on a a

routine basis during operations of the LLW facility, including inspection of incoming shipments and licensee site activities and to respond to emergencies associated with the site. During periods of peak activity additional staff or specialty consultants should be available on a timely basis.

Questions:

1. Complete a table listing the professional (technical) person-years of effort applied to the agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the name, position, and fraction of time spent in the following areas: administration, materials licensing & compliance, emergency response, LLW, U-mills. If these regulatory responsibilities are divided between offices, the table should be consolidated to include all personnel contributing to the radioactive materials pr ram. If consultants were used to carry out the program's responsibilities, include their efforts. The table heading should be:

NAME POSITION AREA 0F EFFORT FTE%

There are four health physicists I's who divide their time equally between the X-Ray and RAM Sections. Each devotes 0.35 FTEs to the RAM Section. The Section Supervisor ;

applies 0.9 FTEs to RAM Section (Note: NH FTE is 1800 '

hours).

i

New Hampshire C-17

2. Is the staffing level adequate to meet normal and special t needs and backup? If not, explain.

t - Yes - once trained

3. Do you currently have vacancies? If so, when do you expect to fill then? -

- Yes - 1 Principal Planner position in the Emergency

Response Section - Hope to fill in August or September of l-this year.

C. Staff Suoervision (Category II) i

NRC Guidelines: Supervisory personnel should be adequate to i

provide guidance and review the work of senior and jutifor personnel. Senior personnel should review applications and inspect licenses independently, monitor work of junior personnel, and participate in the establishment of policy. Junior personnel should be initially limited to reviewing license applications and inspecting small programs under close supervision.

Questions:

1. Identify your senior personnel assigned to monitor the work of junior personnel.

! l

- See Appendix B (organizational charts) l D. Trainino (Category II)

NRC Guidelines: Senior personnel should have attended NRC core ,

courses in licensing orientation,. inspection procedures, medical l practices and industrial radiography practices. The RCP should t

have a program to utilize specific short courses and workshops to maintain appropriate level of staff technical ccmpetence in areas l of changing technology. The RCP staff should be afforded opportunities for training that is consistent with the needs of the program.

Questions:

1. . Prepare a table listing all of the training courses, workshops, seminars, symposia, etc. that your materials

! personnel have attended since the last review. The table heading should be:

Student Course Snonsor Dates Mario Iannaccone Troxler Trng Crse Troxler 7/17/92 (8 hrs.)

Computer Trng Dataease 8/18/92 - 8/21/92 i

(8 hrs.)

l ASA 8/31/92 (3 hrs.)

DOS HDM Shell 9/03/92 (3 hrs.)

(

New Hampshire C-18 I

i All Bureau Meeting 9/16/92 (2 hrs.)

ll. '-

VT Yankee ERO Trng 9/23/92 (8 hrs!)

Seabrook Stain ERO Supv Trng 10/14/92 (6 hrs.)

i Special Topics Wrkshp review 10/15/92 (4 hrs.)

i NE Rad Health NERHC 11/03/92 -

1 Comm Mtg 11/06/92

X-ray TECH 11/20/92

SS of EOF Ex 11/23/92 (7 hrs.)

All Bureau Mtg 01/21/93 (2 hrs.)

j VY Ingestion Pathway 01/27/93 (4 hrs.)

NEXT 93 Trng 03/17/93 -

) 03/18/93 (16 hrs.)

i All Bureau Mtg 04/08/93

Hospital Inspection Trng 08/18/93 (8 hrs.)

08/24/93 (8 hrs.)

i SS ERF 11/04/93 (8 hrs.)

All Bureau Mtg 12/01/93 i SS PT20 12/02/93 (2 hrs.)

i SS Comp Trng METPK 12/21/93 (4 hrs.)

l NH Personnel Trng 01/26/94 (8 hrs.)

l NEXT 94 02/22/94 -

02/24/94 (16 hrs.)

New Data base Trng 03/15/94 (2 hrs.)

, Annual Meeting NECHPS 05/05/94 (8 hrs.)

Licensing Course NRC 06/13/94 -

t 06/17/94 l~ Equiv New Pt 20 Trng 06/27/94 06/30/94 .

Part 20 Workshop DPHS/BRH 07/25/94 Deborah Russell Medical Uses NRC 08/15/94 -

08/19/94 Inspection NRC 08/08/94 - l Procedures 08/12/94 Part 20 Workshop DPHS/BRH 07/25/94 Part 20 Training DPHS/BRH 06/27/94 and 06/30/94 l Licensing Course NRC .06/13/94 -

06/17/94 Annual Meeting NECHPS 05/05/94 Glenbrook Tech- Glenbrook 04/93 nologies Lixiscope Trng Annual Meeting NERHC 11/02/93 -

11/05/93 Ingestion Pathway 01/27/93 Exposure '

Health Physics & ORISE Summer 94 Radiation Protection RERO FEMA 01/12/93 -

01/23/93 Annual Meeting NERHC 11/03/92 -

11/06/92

s .

New Hampshire C-19 Kathleen In'dustrial NRC 05/94

( McAllister Radiography N

RERO FEMA 05/94 Health Physics & ORISE Winter 94 Radiation Protection Troxler Training Troxler 07/93 for Moisture Density Gauges Glenbrook Tech- Glenbrook 04/93 nologies Lixiscope Trng J. Christopher NH BRH Part 20 NH BRH 07/25/94 i Pirie Training for l Licensees & !

l Registrants l l NH BRH in-house NH BRH 06/30/94 and Part 20 Training 06/27/94 l SDMP Workshop NRC 06/01/94 l QM Rule Workshop NRC 04/20/94 l RAM Transportation NRC 09/27/93 -

l 10/01/93 i

Gauge Operators Troxler 07/20/93

, Trng Course l Rad Protection NRC 12/07/92 -

l Engineering 12/11/92 l Course l

Industrial NRC 04/06/92 -

Radiography 04/10/92

, 2. If any of your materials staff currently need NRC training, I

please identify the employees and the courses needed.

I Mario Iannaccone: NRC Inspection Procedures Course, NRC 1 Medical Uses Course, NRC RAM Transportation Course, NRC Well Logging Course, NRC Radiation Protection Engineering Course.

Deborah Russell: NRC Industrial Radiography Course, NRC RAM Transportation Course, NRC Well logging Course, NRC Radiation . Protection Engineering Course.

Kathleen McAllister: NRC Materials Licensing Course, NRC i Inspecting Procedures Course, NRC Medical Uses Course, NRC l RAM Transportation Course, NRC Well logging Course, NRC l- Radiation Protection Engineering Course.

Twila Kenna: 5-week Applied Health Physics Course l J. Christopher Pirie: NRC Well Logging Course 4

l l

New Hampshire C-20

}

, E. Staff continuity (Category II)

NRC Guidelines: 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 RCP organization structure should be such that staff turnover is minimized and program continuity maintained through

! opportunities for promotion. Promotion opportunities should exist j from junior level to senior level or supervirory positions. There

also should be opportunity for periodic salary increases l compatible with experience and responsibility.

l Questions:

a

{ 1. List the RCP salary schedule as follows:

! Position Title Annual Salary Ranoe i

j Administrator, Radiological Health Bureau 36,231-43,193 i Health Physicist II, RAM Supervisor 3rl,726-37,849 i Health Physicist 1 29,094-34,437 j Lab Scientist III (radiochemist) 24,648-29.094

! '2 . Identify the technical staff who left the Agreement program j during this period and, if possible, give the reasons for 1

the turnovers.

l

- Donald Halle - HPl! Supervisor, Radiation Machine i

Section, retired 4/1/92.

- Wayne Johnston - HPI, became HPII to replace Don as l Section Supervisor on 10/9/92.

i Charles Putnam - Principal Planner - Emergency Response,

retired 4/30/94.

i j V. LICENSING i

A. Technical cuality of Licensine Actions (Category I) i i

NRC Guidelines: The RCP should assure that essential elements of i applications have been submitted to the agency, and which meet i current regulatory guidance for describing the isotopes and

quantities to be used, qualifications of persons who will use i material,- facilities and equipment, and operating and

! emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis' for

)

licensing actions.

j Additionally, in States which regulate the disposal of low-level

! radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities, the RCP should i assure that essential elements of waste disposal applications meet

State licensing requirements for waste product and volume, I

1

'New Hampshire C-21 t j

qualifications of personnel, facilities and equipment, operating -

'(

i and emergency procedures, financial qualifications and assurances, closure and decommissioning procedures and institutional 1 arrangements in a manner sufficient to establish a basis for j - licensing action. Licensing activities should be adequately ,

i documented including safety evaluation reports, product

certifications or similar documentation of the license review and i approval process. Prelicensing visits should be made for complex j and major licensing actions. Licenses should be clear, complete, j and accurate as to isotopes, foms, quantities, authori: ed uses, and pemissive or restrictive conditions. The RCP should have procedures for reviewing licenses prior to renewal to assure that

,- supporting information in the file reflects the current scope of l j the licensed program.

j Questions:

1

\

F 1. Please list the State's major licensees by name, license j number and type. Include:

3

.o Broad Licenses

! o LLW Disposal o LLW Brokers (All Types)

I o Manufacturers and Distributors i

o Uranium Mills i o Irradiators (Other than Self-Contained) i , o Nuclear Pharmacies o Other Licenses With a Potential Significance for j Environmental Impact

! The table heading should be:

Licensee Name License Number License Tyne Dartmouth College 276R Broad A Dartmouth College 382R Irradiator >10,000 Ci University of NH 190R' Broad A

2. Identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses issued, j renewed or terminated in this period.

2 Nuclear Pharmacy applications reviewed (still pending final approval).

1 Research Irradiator (>10,000 C1), license issued

. I small, self-contained, self-shielded irradiator, license

! amendment issued i

I sealed source distributor, license issued

3. Please list all licensees requiring contingency plans using

, the NRC criteria from 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70.

- - . - - . - .-. .-,__ . - -. - . .- _ . - - - - - - . - - . - . - = - - .-

i , **

i.

! New Hampshire C-22

e - None i i

! '- 4. Discuss any variances in your licensing policies or i procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during

the period.

- None i B. Adenuacy of Product Evaluations (Category I) i

! NRC Guidelines: RCP evaluations of manufacturer's or

! distributor's data on sealed sources and devices outlined in NRC,

! State, or appropriate ANSI Guides, should be sufficient to assure

integrity and safety for users. The RCP should review manufacturer's information on labels and brochures relating to l j radiation health and safety, assay, and calibration procedures for adequacy. Approval documents for sealed source or device designs

should be clear, complete and accurate as to isotopes, forms, i quantities, uses, drawing identifications, and permissive or restrictive conditions, l

i Approval documents for radion.tive waste packages, solidification -

? and stabilization media, or other vendor products used to treat j radioactive waste for disposal should be complete and accurate as

to the use, capabilities, limitations, and site specific j restrictions associated with each prodhet. I j Questions

I 1. Prepare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations

, of sealed sources and devices issued during the reporting i period. The table heading should be: '

l SS&D Nanufacturer, Type of Indicate Indicate if

- Registry Distributor or Device if Agreement

Number Custom User or Source NARM Material i

NH-0702-S-101-S CIS-US, Inc. Flood Source X l for medical uses i 2. List the applications for $$&D registrations for which j registry documents have not yet been issued.

I j - None

- C. Licensino Procedures (Category !!)

NRC Guidelines: The RCP should have internal licensing guides,

. checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC i practice.

In States which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive

! waste in permanent disposal facilities, the RCP should have

l- New Hampshire C-23 g program specific licensing guides, plans and procedures for 4 -

license review and policy memoranda which relate to specific

, aspects of waste disposal. The program should include the preparation of safety evaluation reports, product certifications, or similar documentation of license review and approval process.

License applicants (including applicants for renewals) should be furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.

l The present compliance status of licensees should be considered in

! licensing actions. Under the NRC Exchange-of-Information program, i evaluation sheets, service licenses, and licenses authorizing d

distribution to general licensees and persons exempt from

licensing should be submitted to NRC on a timely basis. Standard l license conditions comparable with current NRC standard license

! conditions should be used to expedite and provide uniformity in l the licensing process. Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information and documentation of discussions and visits.

Questions:

l 1. What changes were made in your written licensing procedures

, (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the

j. reporting period?

! New forms or checklists developed during the review period

) include license application review form, supervisory review form, pre-licensing inspection form,and physician-user l application checklist were developed.

The following new regulatory guides were furnished to State licensees:

a. " Guide for the Preparation of License Applications for i

Laboratory and Industrial Use of Small Quantities of Radioactive Material"

. b. " Guide of the Preparation of License Applications for

! Nuclear Pharmacy Operations" l c. " Guide for Change in Name or Ownership of Radioactive

! Material License"

d. " Guide for Application for Mobile Nuclear Medicine s Service" l e. " Guide for the Preparation of License Applications for 3 Leak Testing"

f. " Guide for the Preparation of License Applications for

the Use of Bone Mineral Analyzers" 4

j- . .

l- New Hampshire C-24 i

!i g. " Guide for Requests for Use of Radioactive Materials

> \ ,, , Compactor" i

VI. COMPLIANCE A. Status of Insnection Procram (Category I) l NRC Guidelines: The State RCP should mairitain an inspection l program adequate to assess licensee compliance with State regulations and license conditions.

1 The inspection program in all States should provide for the

! inspection of licensee's waste generation activities under the

State's jurisdiction. In States which regulate the disposal of

low-level radioactive waste in pemanent disposal facilities, the l RCP should include provisions for pre-operational, operational, i and post-operational facility inspections. The inspections should

]'

cover all program elements which are relevant at the time of the inspection and be performed independently of any resident inspector program. In addition, inspections should be conducted on a routine basis during the operation of the LLW facility.

including inspection of incoming shipments and licensee site l activities.

i The RCP should maintain statistics which are adequate to permit j Program Management to assess the status of the inspection program

>. on a periodic basis. Information showing the number of 1 inspections conducted, the number overdue, the length of time overdue and the priority categories should be readily available.

l There should be at least semiannual inspection planning for the i number of inspections to be performed, assignments to senior i

versus junior staff, assignments to regions, identification of special needs and periodic status reports. When backlogs occur the program should develop and implement a plan to reduce the-backlog. The plan should identify priorities for inspections and l establish target dates and milsstones for assessing progress.

j Questions:

! 3. Prepare a table identifying the Priority 1, 2, and 3

+

licenses with inspections that are overdue by more than 50%

l cf their scheduled frequency. Include the licensee name,

inspection priority, the due date, and the number of months

the inspection is overdue. The list should include initial l

inspections that are overdue. The table heading should be:

i l'

i Insp. Freq.

l Liggp ee Name (Years) Due Date Months 0/D 1

j .

DartmoIth College l' 08/01/93 12

Note: Academic broad license; would fall under NRC l

l _

j- . .

l New Hampshire C-25 ;

j ( Priority 2, with due date 08/01/94.

i .

i 4

2. Describe your action plan for completing your overdue

inspections. If there is a backlog of (1) inspections with an inspection frequency of 3 i years or less that are overdue by more than 50% ;

4 of their scheduled frequency, or ,

1

, (2) inspections with lower inspection frequencies that are overdue by more than 100% of their j scheduled frequency, j please include with the questionnaire a written action plan

for eliminating the backlog.

! The written action plan should contain inspection priorities, numerical and time frame goals for reducing the backlog, provide a method to measure the program's progress, I and provide for management review of the program's success

! in meeting the goals.

i 1

- The Dartmouth College inspection is scheduled to be conducted on September 8 and 9, 1994. The inspection team will consist of 2 Health Physicists and a radiochemist. A i

review of the inspection schedule for the next four months

. indicates a need for emphasis on higher priority j inspections.

i Also, several of the lower priority inspections can be

! accomplished within a short amount of time. Progress will l l be tracked very carefully. I

! 3. How many on-site close-out inspections prior to license

! termination were made during the reporting period? '

1 - 14 i

i 4. How many on-site close-out inspections are pending at this j time? ;

4 l - None 1

5. How many reciprocity notices were received in the reporting period?

e j - 250, including gauges 4

{ 6. How many reciprocity inspections were conducted?

4

{ - 10

?

j '

i

l

New Hampshire C-26 l

! 7. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections

! g of radiographers were performed?

-0 Practically impossible, considering that the only

. one radiographer authorized for field activities, works

rarely in New Hampshire; most field work in Massachusetts

! 8. What percentage is this of your total number of radiographer i licensees?

! .g

{ B. Insoection Freauency (Category I) i NRC Guidelines: The RCP should establish an inspection priority i system. The specific frequency of inspections should be based ,

upon the potential hazards of licensed operations, e.g., major !

i processors, broad licensees, and industrial radiographers should i 4 be inspected approximately annually -- smaller or. less hazardous i

operations may be inspected less frequently. The minimum '

! inspection frequency including for initial inspections should be j no less than the NRC system.

! Questions:

i

. 1. Identify individual licensees or grouss of licensees the State is inspecting more frequently t tan called for in the l State's inspection priority system and discuss the reason for the change.

- A few licensees have been logged into the database as

, needing follow-up inspections, based on findings of

previous inspections.

. C. Insoector's Performance and Canability (Category !)

, NRC Guidelines: Inspectors should be competent to evaluate health

! and safety problems and to determine compliance with State

regulations. Inspectors must demonstrate to supervision an

< understanding of regulations, inspection guides, and policies

prior to independently conducting inspections. For the inspection

! of complex licensed activities such as permanent low-level

! radioactive waste disposal facilities, a multidisciplinary team approach is desirable to assure a complete compliance assessment.

The compliance supervisor (may be RCP manacer) should conduct i annual field evaluations of each inspector te assess performance I

and assure application of appropriate and (gr.sistent policies and guides.

i Questions:

) 1. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory

accompaniments made during the reporting period. Include

t 0

l New Hampshire C-27 l Sunervisor Insnector License Tyne Date Dennis O'Dowd D. Russell Gauge 3/23/93 Dennis O'Dowd K. McAllister R&D 5/14/93 DeEnisO'Dowd M. Iannaccone Gauge 7/10/93 Dennis O'Dowd M. Iannaccone Medical 5/24/94 Dennis O'Dowd D. Russell Medical 6/09/94 ,

1 l Dennis O'Dowd J. C. Pirie Medical 6/15/94 Note: K. McAllister is scheduled to be accompanied on an upcoming inspection. Other supervisory accompaniments were

made during new inspector's initial training period.

l 2. Were all inspectors accompanied at least annually by the compliance supervisor during the reporting period? If not, explain.

\

- Yes l l

D. Resoonses to Incidents and A11eoed Incidents (Category I) !

I NRC Guidelines: Inquiries should be promptly made to evaluate the need for on-site investigations. On-site investigations should be promptly made of incidents requiring reporting to the Agency in less than 30 days (10 CFR 20.403 types). For those incidents not l requiring reporting to the Agency in less than 30 days, l l investigations should be made during the next scheduled l l

inspection. On-site investigations should be promptly made of :

non-reportable incidents which may be of significant public !

interest and concern, e.g. transportation accidents. .

Investigations should include in-depth reviews of circumstances '

and should be completed on a high priority basis. When l appropriate, investigations should include reenactments and time-study measurements (normally within a few days). Investigation (or inspection) results should be documented and enforcement action taken when appropriate. State licensees and the NRC should be notified of pertinent information about any incident which could be relevant to other licensed operations (e.g., equipment failure, improper operating procedures). Information on incidents involvin failure of equipment should be provided to the agency responsi le for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency. The RCP should have access to medical consultants wien needed to diagnose or treat radiation injuries. The RCP should use other technical consultants for special problems when needed.

j Questions:

l i

l

New Hampshire C-28 1

1. Identify any incidents that required NRC notification, '

i

$ either by telephone or by written report.

- 2 nuclear density gauge incidents i 2. Identify any incidents that required Abnormal Occurrence i Reports. i i l l - None

3. Identify any incidents that involved equipment or source

failure or deficient operating procedures issued by the

manufacturer. Discuss

Were the NRC and other State licensees who might be l affected notified?

Was the informatien on the incident provided to the i agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an i assessment of possible generic design deficiency?

f Please provide details for each case.

- None identified.

1 i 4. If the RCP utilized medical or technical consultants for an emergency during the reporting period, please describe the j circumstances for each case.

l - No

5. In the reporting period, were there any cases involving

! possible criminal wrongdoing that were looked into or are

presently undergoing review? If so, please describe the circumstances for each case.

j - No l E. Enforcement Procedures (Category I)

! NRC Guidelines: Enforcement Procedures should be. sufficient to

provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with

. regulatory requirements. Provisions for the levying of monetary 4

penalties are recommended. Enforcement letters should be issued 4

within 30 days following inspections and should employ appropriate

regulatory language clearly specifying all items of noncompliance

and health and safety matters identif'ed during the inspection and referencing the appropriate regulation or license condition being

violated. Enforcement letters should specify the time period for 4

the licensee to respond indicating corrective actions and actions i '

taken to prevent recurrence (normally 20-30 days). The inspector and compliance supervisor should review licensee responses.

i 1

. . l i !

l New Hampshire

j. C-29

i. Licensee responses to enforcement letters should be promptly

'{ acknowledged as to adequacy and resolution of previously i' unresolved items. Written procedures should exist for handling l~ escalated enforcement cases of varying degrees. Impounding of

. material should be in accordance with State administrative

procedures. Opportunity for hearings should be provided to assure

! impartial administration of the radiation control program. !

! Questions:

! I. If during the reporting period the State issued orders, !

3 applied civil penalties, sought criminal penalties,

impounded sources, or held fomal enforcement hearings,

identify these cases and give a brief suunary of the i j

circumstances and results for each case. l

! DRDERS 151UID j i '

l Lic. No. 319R; Electropac; Lixiscope; order to Show Cause !

(why license should not be revoked); history of non- l t compliance and inability to correct and present violations; ;

l resulted in voluntary termination. -

l

Unlicensed; Continental Paving; Cease and Desist Order;

Possession of RAM without a license; transferred gauge to ,

manufacturer; initially sought license, but subsequently l

. withdrew application. '

j GEI Consultants; portable gauge; Cease and Desist Order; possession of RAM without a license; transferred to another

!- specific licensee. Eventually obtained licensure.

1 i' License No. 296R; Atlantic Testing Laboratories; license l suspension; based on several significant violations and j careless disregard for regulatory requirements; (portable l gauges); license still suspended i

Lic. No. 339R; Mixlee Environmental; nicrocurie Re-226

source;-order requesting information l INFORMAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES Lic. No. 319R, Electropac; see above

Continental Paving; see ~ above

GEI Consultants; see above e

i Lic. No. 367R; Granite State Environmental; X-Ray

'[ Fluorescence Analyzer; significant violations

$< Lic. No. 353R; Heynen-Teale Engineers, Inc.; violations j which resulted in crushed portable gauge 1

u. -l

l. , .

New Hampshire C-30 Lic. No. 279R; Resource Analysts, Inc.; Carbon 14 uses; I, failure to properly decontaminate /decounission facilities Lic. No. 257R; Ve.11ey Regional Hospital; medical diagnostic uses; significant violations Lic. No 336 R; Thomas Murphy; bone' analyzer; history of non-compliance

2. Discuss changes made in the enforcement procedures during the reporting period.

More frequent use of informal conferences; these appear to be quite effective in producing desired effect (i.e.,

improvedcompliancebylicensee).

F. Insnection Procedures (Category II)

NRC Guidelines: Inspection guides, consistent with current NRC guidance, should be used by inspectors to assure uniform and complete inspection practices and provide technical guidance in the inspection of licensed programs. NRC Guides may be used if properly supplemented by policy memoranda, agency interpretations, etc. Written inspection policies should be issued to establish a policy for conducting unannounced inspections, obtaining corrective action, following up and closing out previous violations, interviewing workers and observing operations, l

' assuring exit interviews with management, and issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety problems, i l

Procedures should be established for maintaining licensees !

compliance histories. Oral briefing of supervision or the senior '

inspector should be performed upon return from nonroutine inspections. For States with separate licensing and inspection 1 staffs, procedures should be established for feedback of i L information to license reviewers.

Questions:

1. What changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period? !

The inspection procedures were updated and expanded. A complate package of inspection procedures and forms has been prepared for the review team.

G.. Insnection Reports (Category II) I NRC Guidelines: Findings of inspections should be documented in a

)

report describing the scope of inspections, substantiating all -

items of noncompliance and health and safety matters, describing the scope of licensees' programs, and indicating the substance of l discussions with licensee management and licensee's response. l

! Reports should uniformly and adequately document the results of

! inspections and identify areas of the licensee's program which w - -

New Hampshire C-31 f should receive special attention at the next inspection. Reports

( should show the status of previous noncompliance and the independent physical measurements made by the inspector.

Questions:

f I. What changes were made in the formats of your reports or I inspection forms during this period?

No significant changes; a couple of new forms.

H. Confirmatory Measurements (t.ttegory II)

NRC Guidelines: Conf fmatory measurements should be sufficient in number and type to ensare the licensee's control of materials and to validate the licensees measurements.

l In States which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive

! waste in permanent disposal facilities, access to testing'should l be available on an "as needed" basis for confirming licensees' and .

! applicants' programs for measurements related to nonradiological l aspects of facility operations such as soils and materials testing ;

and environmental sampling and analysis to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations and l ensure facility performance. Conditions for nonradiological j testing should be prescribed in plans or procedures.

RCP instrumentation should include the following types:

l GM Survey Meter: 0-50 mr/hr I

lon Chamber Survey Meter: up to several R/hr Neutron Survey Meter: Fast & Thermal Alpha Survey Meter: 0-100,000 c/m Air Samplers: Hi and Low Volume Lab Counters: Detect 0.001 pc/ wipe i

Velometers '

Smoke Tubes Lapel Air Samplers

, Instrument calibration services or facilities should be readily available and appropriate for instrumentation used. Licensee equipment and facilities should not be used unless under a service contract. Exceptions for other State Agencies, e.g., a State University, may be made. Agency instruments should be calibrated

, at intervals not greater than that required to licensees being inspected.

(Note: Addition types of instrumentation that are highly desirable l are thin window plastic or Na! detectors for low energy gammas and

" micro-R" meters with audio signal for searching for ost gamma emittersources.)

i Questions:

1

Nea Hampshire C-32 i

1. Describe any changes in your instrumentation or methods of calibration in this reporting period. l With Twila Kenna in radiochemistry working for RAM section, !

, a fully implemented calibration program is in effect. l l

Specifically, instruments are routinely sent to South Carolina's calibration laboratory (a CRCPD accredited i calibration facility) or the specifically-licensed 1 j instrument manufacturers's facility.

During recent deliberations by the staff in planning for

next year's equipment purchases, a high-volume air sampling system and a velometer were added to our needs list.

l 9

i .' . .

.- New Hampshire C-33 PART II

. i PROGRAM STATISTICS d

[ as of 8/15/94

1. How many specific licenses are currently in effect?

, - 99 1 l l 2. How many technical FTE's (not including administrative, clerical or

. unfilled vacancies) are currently assigned to the:

?

Radioactive materials program? .35 FTE/HPI X 4 = 1.4

.9 FTE/HHPII X 1 = J l 2.3 l i

Low-Level waste program?

Uranium mills program?

); 3. Compute the professional / technical person-year effort of person-years per 100 licenses (excluding management above the direct RAM supervisor, i vacancies and personnel assigned to mills and burial site licenses).

Count only time dedicated to radioactive materials.

2.3 g9 x100 =2. 3FTr/10OSL's i

i

{

j 4. During the review period:

! Note: In addition to items below,15 applications were denied; 23 j applications were withdrawn

_ a. How many new licenses were issued?

E - 14

\

b. How many licenses were terminated?

- 24 a

c. How many licenses were renewed?

32 full renewals l - 209 simple renewals, annually form and fee only

d. How many amendments were issued?

2

- 142 i

i. . . .

j' New Hampshire C-34 I I

e. How many SS&D evaluations were completed?

j - 1 (NARM source) i

f. How many prelicensing visits were made? ;

i

! -4 I g. How many new licenses (or major amendments) were hand delivered to i j the licensee? l 4

l -3 j h. How many reports of materials incidents or allegations were received?

li i - 12

1. How many on-site incident investigations were conducted? j 1

l -9 i j. How many misadministrations were reported? i

! l

! - 4 all diagnostic i i !

k. How many civil penalties were imposed?

I -0 i l 1 1. How many orders were issued? '

i - Ref. VI, E.1 above 1

i 5. Please complete the following table using the license categories as !

! shown, and including the total number of specific licenses in each

! category, the priority or inspection frequency, the number of inspections made during the review period, and the number of overdue

! inspections in each category. (In Priorities 1-3, include those overdue j by more than SM of their scheduled inspection frequency; in lower priorities, include those overdue by more than 10M of their scheduled frequency.)

i

- See next page. '

New Hampshire C-35 l Insp. No. No.

No. of Freq. Insps. Overdue l {,

License Cateaorv' Licenses (vears) Made Insos.

i Broad A Academic 7. 1

l#

l Industrial Radiography 2 1 *

! Irradiator > 10,000 C1 1 1

I Teletherapy 2 1

l Medical, other than teletherapy 22 2 21

! Distribution only 2 2 2 R&D .

I 2 1 Source Material (Th-242) 1 2 1 Fluorescence X-Ray Analyzer 16 4 8 i

Lixiscope 1 4 1 i Gas Chromatograph 6 4 4

. Portable Gauge )

1 12 4 7 Fixed Gauge 7 4 3 In vitro use of RAM 5 4 3

Service, Testing, Calibration 7 4 4 i Other Sources (betascope) 1 4 1 l Source Material 4 4 3 4

'Other -

7~ -

5. .

TOTALS f 99 -

9 1 Information not available. Data taken from "last inspection" computer

listing. Priority I licenses were inspected more than once in reporting

period.

# Academic broad license would fall under NRC Priority 2, with due date 08/01/94.

I i

9 Information not available. Data taken from computer listing do not reflect total inspections if more than one inspection was conducted for any one

licensee.

1 i

i i

i 4

i a

j i

i i

J

- r - -

ML20140C393

Contents

Text

Dear Ms. Tefft:

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

Navigation menu

ML20140C393

Text

Dear Ms. Tefft:

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

Navigation menu

Search