ML20140E070

Ack Receipt of to Hl Thompson Detailing Disappointment & Disagreement W/Findings Stated in Integrated Matls Performance Evaluation Program Review of Maryland Program Final Rept

ML20140E070
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/05/1997
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Zawmon M MARYLAND, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20140E074	List: ML20140E070
References
NUDOCS 9706110229
Download: ML20140E070 (11)

Text

. m _____ __ . - . _ _ _m . _ .- m. - _

• ... .p tuo m k UNITED STATES i

j t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

WASHINGTON. D.C. 2066tM001 l June 5, 1997 i

i l

l l l Ms. Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Director l l Air and Radiation Management Administration j l Maryland Department of the Environment 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224

Dear Ms. Zaw-Mon:

We have received your letter dated April 25,1997, to Mr. Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs, NRC, detailing your disappointment and disagreement with the findings stated in the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) Review of Maryland Program Final Report. Before I clarify the reasons behind the findings for the Maryland program, you should be aware that as a result of the Maryland IMPEP review, NRC did note the significant effort expended by Maryland since l l

the last review to promulgate nearly all overdue regulations and meet the regulatory i challenges associated with Neutron Products, Inc., in addition to completing other radiation l control progrem responsibilities.

! I l The first issue concerns the overall finding that Maryland's program is adequate, but needs  !

improvement. You disagree with the overall rating since only one indicator was found to j l need improvement. The IMPEP review team and MRB concluded that the concerns

! involving the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, were sufficient to warrant an overall rating of Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety But Needs improvement. This common performance indicator finding was especially significant since it also had applicability to other areas of the program, such as the technical quality of l inspections performed by a specific inspector, and raised questions about assignment of l inspections to inspectors with various skilllevels, inspector accompaniments by supervisors, and inspector qualification procedures and documentation. Thus, upon reconsideration, the NRC believes that the initial overall program finding of Adequate to l Protect Public Health and Safety But Needs improvement is appropriate, especially since l your letter contained little additional factual information. Please note that the Agreement State Radiation Control Program Director Liaison to the MRB supported this finding.

Furthermore, as indicated by your letter, we confirm that this overall rating indicates an opportunity for increased management effectiveness in your program. The finding does not mean that any significant concern exists about the level of protection of public health and safety provided by your program.

The second issue addresses the incompatibility of Maryland's program. We reevaluated our comments identified in the letter dated February 28,1997. Based on our reevaluation, two comments corresponding to 10 CFR Part 20 rules have been deleted, since we learned one of these Maryland regulations is identical to the Conference of Radiation Control i

Program Directors' Suggested State Regulations which were previously approved by NRC. I The other was a clarifying NRC rule change for which no compatibility classification was ,

designated. A revised set of specific NRC comments is attached.

IllElllllllllllllll0llllllulll 87 l

,0i rop 1,,2299,,,0, PDR STPRG ESGMD gg gy PDR

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

Merrylin Zaw-Mon 2 M 0 51997 l

l We note, however, that my March 3,1995, letter to Jane Nishida, Secretary Designee, Maryland Department of the Er'vironment, indicated that the Maryland equivalent to NRC's 10 CFR 30.50, Incident Reporting Requirements, was due for adoption as of October 15, 1994. This regulation has not yet been adopted by Maryland according to our review.

Since all but this one regulation were identified to the State only one week before the MRB, as stated in the March 21,1997 letter, NRC will reevaluate the compatibility l

determination upon final promulgation of the revisions of the specific regulations identified, as attached. Maryland could presently adopt legally binding requirements, such as through the use of license conditions, as an alternative to the promulgation of regulations. NRC j can find a State program compatible if any appropriate form of a legal binding requirement ,

is used. Again, no additional factual information has been provided that would result in a change to the MRB's compatibility finding.

j i trust that this letter responds to your comments. If you have any additional comments or  ;

questions, please contact me at 301-415-3340. For your information, I have coordinated  ;

this letter with members of the Maryland MRB.

i l

Sincerely, MM8dOf RICHARD L BANGART Richard L. Bangart, Director l Office of State Programs

Attachment:

As stated

, Distribution:

DIR RF DCD i SPOS) PDR (YES)

EDO RF (G970312)

SDroggitis Maryland File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\7E312MD.KNS 'See previous concurrence.

Ta recahre a copy of thle document, indicate in the boa: .' C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy wnh attachment / enclosure 'N' = No copy Oth /NA OFFICE QS Q p OQ:$ AEODl NMSS OGC OSP/% DEDR NAME KSchheider:kk~ PHt)Mus

• FCongel MKnapp FCameron RLilhhdyrt Dpsefr j j' Telephone I HLThqr,h p l l DATE 06/]/97 06/i/97 05/20/97 05/21/97* 05/22/97* 06N/97 064 /97 j OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-14 l ,

1 g ,

gg HLE CENTER COPY

Merrylin Zaw-Mon 2 9UN 0 51997 We note, however, that my March 3,1995, letter to Jane Nishida, Secretary Designee, Maryland Department of the Environment, indicated that the Maryland equivalent to NRC's 10 CFR 30.50, incident Reporting Requirements, was due for adoption as of October 15, 1994. This regulation has not yet been adopted by Maryland according to our review.

Since all but this one regulation were identified to the State only one week before the  ;

MRB, as stated in the March 21,1997 letter, NRC will reevaluate the compatibility  !

determination upon final promulgation of the revisions of the specific regulations identified, as attached. Maryland could presently adopt legally binding requirements, such as through the use cf license conditions, as an alternative to the promulgation of regulations. NRC can find a State program compatible if any appropriate form of a legal binding requirement )

is used. Again, no additional factualinformation has been provided that would result in a l change to the MRB's compatibility finding.

I trust that this letter responds to your comments. If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at 301-415-3340. For your information, I have coordinated this letter with members of the Maryland MRB.

Sincerely,

[

itw// Bagaf Richard L. Bangart, Director [/ l Office of State Programs

Attachment:

As stated 1

l

__y l

,. 1 l l

! i l

! Review of IState Reaulation Citation 1 Aasinst Comoatibility Division 1 and 2 Criteria State NRC j Qiva Rule IMg_ Subiect and Comments l

l 2 D.801 20.1801 Security of Stored Material.

l l Section D.801 does not include the entire phrase

...shall secure from unauthorized removal or access..."

as set out in Section 20.1801. The words "or access" have been deleted. This section, as written, may not require an equivalent level of security. For example, the rule may not cover a situation where an unauthorized individual gained access to a storage location and removed radioactive material from its shielding / packaging, but did not physically remove the material from the storage location. This rule is a Division 2 matter of compatibility. We suggest you amend this section to include the additional woroing "or access".

2 None 30.50 Reporting Requirements.

Steff was unable to find incident reporting requirements equivalent to those contained in 5 30.50 in the [ State) regulations. This rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility and should be adopted to maintain compatibility.  ;

2 None 39.49 Uranium Sinker Bars.

Staff was unable to find an equivalent section in the

[ State] regulations. This rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility and should be adopted to maintain compatibility.

2 None 39.51 Use of Sealed Source in Well Without Surface Casing.

Staff was unable to find an equivalent section in the State regulations. If [ State] has other requirements that would preclude welllogging from being performed in an uncased well, staff sees no need for [Statel to adopt this requirement. However, these provisions are designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility.

Therefore, if welllogging operations could be performed in wells without surface casing, the provisions of this section should be adopted to maintain compatibility.

l ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP  :

DATE: MAY 16, 1997 i

i PARALLEL CONCURRENCE REQUESTED INITIALS p_AATE j H. L. THOMPSON, DEDR / /97 K. CYR/F. CAMERON OGC 5/2 W 97 C. PAPERIELLO/D. COOL, NHSS 5/ /97 D. ROSS/F. CONGEL, AEOD 5/ /97 LETTER T0: MERRYLIN ZAW MON DIRECTOR AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT A

FROM: ( ' QICHARD L BANGART, DIRECTOR

\

i W0FfICE F STATE PROGRAMS v :s .i

SUBJECT:

MARY RB EIE: THE PREVIOUS ORAFT WAS REVISED BASED ON MRB DISCUSSIONS HELD MAY 14. 1997. ED BAILEY, AEiEMENT STATE LIAIS0N TO THE MARYLAND MRB, WILL BE REQUESTED TO COMMEfa' ON THIS RESPONSE AFTER ADDITIONAL MRB COMMENTS ARE RECEIVED.

YOUR COMMENTS / CONCURRENCE ARE REQUESTED BY C.O.B. MAY 21. 1997.

OSP CONTACT: RICHARD L. BANGART (415-4430) l l

PLEASE CALL KATHALEEN VERR (415 3340) FOR PICK UP.

~

NM$$/PMDA TED 301-415-5401~ ~'~~'HA9 21'97' '10:01"No.061 F.01~~~ ,

g /ga ar:gg

• g

- t UNITED STATES yh h .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

g f wasmusrow. o c. -,

% .... /

f i

FAI MACHINE NO. (301) 415-5401 VERIFICATION No. (301) 415-7359 ,

TErFN SA17

)

To rax ago.

1. $lNo//t~ Nr e- 4'/S-3cb:n.

2.  ;

3.

4 ,

5.

6.

NESSACE hkrl-t44 "

h 0 n b. S r.- / 4:e h!q k e/1 o,p

/ '

f a r l?a) % n-sA' on. 5 i<n *// p/ <k /ne,*,x/ '

i~ i

/ J S 1m,'l.

f!I $'

i NUMBER OF PAGES _

AND COVER SHEET raon _-

[A, /en. ' PHONE f/["7[/*2-p i

l t

i l

I4MS S / F'M DH lEL:503-4h5-54Uh M 2' y 21 ' '.R 10 :02 ilo .001 F .0; AJ . , E *'

-t' v. ' ;@: C.

.s ..i '.'.. ,>i ,  ; ,' i, ! j -;l oq' .:~." :< ..

. ...t: ;,g' . -. . . . . ,

m - .c _

y , e. . .4

. . .N t ' DSE';R)F58 414A . .u' DOuS ,

i:d y w.f.. ; , ; g ." , fw,m . m .-: I474

,, ,,3 s.* , .-

l 12 DOCUMENT LOGGNG AND ' " r

~ j uS. NinW prra MTOW & % 1

. . . , mm m 3:., l r r. .

. c .. . . e f DAT E ;

m opgg )

~

l l ** ' WW AND 'm

,, l:

.'., 4 h o u,.nNN'~sLW W'J O ' .c , 1 , ,, . ,-. ORKwuTING -

l

, ?,:, -:cyr; ,. V :n , ::; .omor4Dmscu SP: R. Bangart l

%; g a M$. .'.BELOW;.JAND

. . . AND PROVIDERETURNING

,(f , ;*SECTION V FLEASE REVIEW YOUR RFC /u,3Y FILLING IN THE "0THER" l IT TO'49"FlM,06 T T

., ,s .. 9:F  :.;. :.. .

- 45@IO4Ta @if ,

3 ;. ' suarcr_, .-!- .>

. . a u e. . w '

~

' LTR.4TO t!.h ; ~; c .. . . .

.'ZAW-MON 3FROM BANGART RE:. DISAPPOINTNENT AND' DISAGREEMENT 3WITH  !

.e.

INvTHE'.IMPEF.

. m ., . ., .

REVIEW.0F'MARYLANDPROGRAM(DUETOOSPC.O.B.f5/21)~,

~

l

..t '.

• k ' '[ ', .; J-] y. ' ,, ,

, - w

[ '-- "" ,

. g. ., ' ,

M,,.j ." . .

• [ p h 's ' f}ik *.? .

s.c ,

' l .: X- i.!'.. .:y. '. ^ lF , :

, .s : 4 . -

'~.'

. & e

{, --

CONCUFFENCES FECENED ~"'

OFHCE PCASON CONCUHFUNG DATE OFFICE PERSON CONCLEFGNG DATI-i t

o e -

DNMSS OTHLH fd SfT.c ( 2 Y.

g n & w . w s u n.. w f ~ 51** G O A

- te cena.d enewwa. .f une-4 DUMjMf

~

, f en_ ,c ,a s n n u. p" a HRt (h f(LWiU Phi

~

ngstfpMpkI TELN01d15-5301 N 9 21 W idid O 5I001 P16T ~

L,*

, i l N Draft - 5/'i 6/97 i

, 1 t

l Ms. Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Director

( Air and Radiation Management Administration '

l Maryland Department of the Environment

' 2500 Broening Highway' Baltimore, MD 21224 '

I l

Dear Ms. Zaw-Mon:

We have received your letter dated April 25,1997, to Mr. Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy l

i Executive Director for Regdatory Programs, NRC, detailing your disappointment and l disagreement with the findings stated in the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation '

Program (IMPEP) Review of Maryland Program - Final Report. Before I clarify the reasons i

behind the findings for the Maryland program, you should be aware that as a result of the Maryland IMPEP review, NRC did note the significant effort expended by Maryland since l the last review to promulgate nearly all overdue regulations and meet the regulatory I challenges associated with Neutron Products, Inc., in addition to completing other radiation 1 control program responsibilities. i The first issue concems the overall finding that Maryland's program is adequate, but needs  :

improvement. You disagree with the overall rating since only one indicator was found to 1

need improvement. The IMPEP review team and MRB concluded that the concerns involving the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, were sufficient to warrant en overall rating of Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety But Needs improvement. The sigtificance of this finding had direct impact on other areas of l the program, such as the technical quality of inspections performed by a specific inspector,

• l / t

[

ytnd raised other questions about assignment of inspections to inspectors with various skill I g) ,/f w % noerin'gj W 0 'E h m . % ,

94 f '"'n -'l7 ?:W/, , f, fra {unewy,

/

ye p,ea- +4~>{

, '-f p w S oy -fan 1 41q h wfAy .was i h, & k by Ot* ,*

NM%,/FMDR TEL:301-415-5401 Mau 21

• N 10:0? No.001 P . 0 ?.

l levels, inspector accomparii ments by supervisors, and inspector qualification procedures and documentation. Thus, upon reconsidsration, the NRC believes that the initial overall e program finding of Adequate to Protect Public Health end Safety But Needs improvement is appropriate, especially since little additional factual information has been provided. Please' I note that the Agreement State Radiation Control Program Director Liaison to the MRB did

• G,prarJ ~k not-obicet4to this finding. Furthermore, as indicated by your letter, we confirm that this f, g

overall rating indicates an opportunrty for increased management effectiveness in your program. The finding does not mean that any significant concern exists about the level of protection of public health and safety provided by your program.

The second issue addresses the incompatibility of Maryland's program. We acknowledge that this finding was based in part on regulations that had been previously reviewed where no issues had been identified. We reevaluated our comments identified in the letter dated February 28,1997 Based on our reevaluation, two comments corresponding to 10 CFR Part 20 rules have neen deleted, since we learned one of these Maryland regulations is identical to the Conference of Radiation Control Program D; rectors' Suggested State l Regulations which were previously approved by NRC. The other was a clarifying NRC rule cha'nge for which no compatibility classification was designated. A revised :. t of specific NRC comments is attached.

We note, however, that rny March 3,1995, letter to Jane Nishida, Secretary Designee, Maryland Department of the Environment, indicated that the Maryland equivalent to NRC's 10 CFR 30.50, incident Reportir.g Requirements, was due for adoption as of October 15, 1994. This regulation has not yet been adopted by Maryland according to our review.

Since all but this one regulation was identified to the State only one week before the MRB,

A 1

1

.. . . ... .. . . .. ~ . . .

P EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

--~~~~~~~ ~~~~ -----~~~~~ ----~~

l TASK # - 7E312

<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>

DATE- 04/30/97 ggggggggggg I MAIL CTRL. - 1997 T3SK STARTED - 04/30/97 TASK

~~~-----

DUE - 05/22/97 TASK COMPLETED -

~~~-~~~~~~~ --

//

TASK DESCRIPTION - LTR FROM M. ZAW-MON, MD TO HUGH THOMPSON: RE MD IMPEP

-~~~~.,---------

REVIEW-FINAL REPORT I REQUESTING

---~~~~~~~~~~~~

OFF. - EDO REQUESTER

~~--.~~~~~

- THOMPSON WITS -

0 FYP - N PROG.-

~~~~

PERSON - STAFF LEAD - PROG. AREA -

~~~~~- ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~_____

{ROgEg,STgTUS -

EDO DUE DATE: 5/23/97 PLANNED ACC. -N LEVEL CODE - 2

/

b

44) ," e hiptrn Q-- ,

b ' '

7 -kLSLO \

ta sl&)<tq , it 5

h79{N-la i L(cd Z o % o ./ n,I p.yn- a l

g( t'ka d#ce ma 6af7

. 4 c w u d s ~ , / M b s ~ d ;/ 1 ntMJxpp+a Aff

, , , - . uw-D os/, >

.I s

4~~

ACT10i

-EDO Principal Correspondence Control t

P FROM ' DUE: 05/23/97 EDO CONTROL: G970312 DOC DT: 04/25/97 i FINAL REPLY:  !

M rrylin Zaw-Mon 1 i

Mary 11nd Department of the Environment TOs Thompson, DEDR FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO:

' Office Director DESC1 ROUTING:

IMPEP (INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Callan PROGRAM) REVIEW OF MARYLAND PROGRAM - FINAL REPORT Jordan Thompson Norry Blaha Burns DATE: 04/30/97 Paperiello,NMSS Cyr, OGC ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

i SP Bangart SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

l j

8om i i

y7  !

s..

i

)

I s

i