ML20195G526
| ML20195G526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/28/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Suppes R OHIO, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195G531 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811230020 | |
| Download: ML20195G526 (7) | |
Text
. -.. - - ~ _ __ -
_ ~ - _ ~.. _... -
7,
/,
,f%
[U
%j UNITED STATES L
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 4001 October 28, 1998 4
i 1
Mr. Roger L Suppes, Chief d
Bureau of Radiation Protection i
Ohio Department of Health
[
35 East Chestnut Street f,
Columbus, OH 43266-0118
Dear Mr. Suppes:
In our letter of June 18,1998, we identified two major issues regarding your draft application for an Agreement. One issue concerns the Ohio definition of the term decommissioning, which is being reviewed separately by the Commission. The other issue, discussed below, concems the staff of the Agreement materials program. This issue has also been discussed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in telephone conversations with you and members of your
- staff, i
in response to our comments on this issue, an analysis of the Bureau of Radiation Protection's staffing plan was enclosed with your letter of July 24,1998. NRC staff has reviewed the j
staffing plan and the analysis. Based on our review, we believe that the Technical Services
.l
. Section is understaffed, given the broad scope of its responsioilities. Because the Decommissioning Section has responsibilities for additional programs not overseen by NRC, we question whether the section's staffing based on a comparison to NRC's staffing is justified.
Furthermore, with 10 of the 29 Bureau technical positions vacant, two of them supervisory positions, the Bureau does not currently have a sufficient number of adequately trained staff members to assume the regulatory workload to be transferred from NRC. The number of vacancies in the licensing and inspection programs appear sufficient to affect the Bureau's ability to complete licensing actions and inspections in a timely manner. The number of qualified staff that will be available to perform sealed source and device (SS&D) reviews does not appear sufficient for the anticipated workload, considering the 13 SS&D manufacturers in Ohio that currently have active registration sheets. The SS&D program also requires very specific technical training and experience, even for the proposed supervision of contract SS&D evaluators. Comments on these issues are enclosed (Enclosure 1). Additional comments may follow, as discussed during the October 21,1998 conference call, based on staff review of your response to earlier review comments.
We conclude that the Bureau will not be adequately staffed to assume the regulatory authority being requested until: (1) the licensing and non-medical inspection supervisor positions are filled with individuals qualified according to your training and qualification procedure g
BRP-IN-100; (2) most of the other staff vacancies are filled with individuals qualified per g
BRP-IN-100; (3) at least two individuals are fully qualified to i srform SS&D reviews; and (4) the i
i distribution of licensing and inspection staff qualifications is reasonably matched to the regulatory _ workload in each of the categories of licensees that will be transferred.
m y _ -,
7
- y g g f_g/A-/3_
PDR STPRO P/$H43'v""
(
Roger L. Suppes
-2 OCT 2 81998 l
We are prepared to recommend that the Commission approve publication of the proposed l
Agreement in the Federal Reaister based on your commitment to complete the following actions before the Agreement is signed: (1) fill the staff vacancies; (2) address the staff level and distribution concems discussed above; and (3) qualify the individual staff members per BRP-IN-100 for their areas of responsibility, or in the case of the SS&D reviewers, to demonstrate that at least two staff members meet the requirements identified in comment number 5 in Enclosure 1. The three commitments will be clearly identified in the Federal Reaister notice. During the comment period, the public will be able to comment on all aspects of the Agreement, including the adequacy of these conditions related to staffing. After the i
public comment period, we would forward the Agreement to the Commission for final approval, but recommend that the Chairman not sign the Agreement until the Bureau actually achieved adequate staffing. This approach presumes that all other significant issues, including those related to decommissioning and disposal restrictions on exempt consumer items, and any public comments, are resolved.
l l
The enclosed (Enclosure 2) Elapsed-day Milestone Schedule provides a current estimate of the timing associated with anticipated Agreement signing and its effective date. We request your views on this approach to completing the Agreement, and your responses to the enclosed
- comments, If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Richard Blanton of my staff at (301) 415-2322 or by E-mail at RLB@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, 2 ft Sn, di Richard L. Bangart, Directp Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
i As stated i
Roger L. Suppes 0CT 2 81998 We are prepared to recommend that the Commission approve publication of the proposed Agreement in the Federal Reaister based on your commitment to co.nplete the following actions before the Agreement is signed: (1) fill the staff vacancies; (2) address the staff level and distribution concerns discussed above; and (3) qualify the individual staff members per BRP-IN-100 for their areas of responsibility, or in the case of the SS&D reviewers, to demonstrate that at least two staff members meet the requirements identified in comment number 5 in Enclosure 1. The three commitments will be clearly identified in the Federal Reaister notice. During the comment period, the public will be able to comment on all aspects of the Agreement, including the adequacy of these conditions related to staffing. After the public comment period, we would forward the Agreement to the Commission for final approval, but recommend that the Chairman not sign the Agreement until the Bureau actually achieved adequate staffing. This approach presumes that all other significant issues, including those related to decommissioning and disposal restrictions on exempt consumer items, and any public comments, are resolved.
The enclosed (Enclosure 2) Elapsed-day Milestone Schedule provides a current estimate of the timing associated with anticipated Agreement signing and its effective date. We request your views on this approach to completing the Agreement, and your responses to the enclosed comments.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Richard Blanton of my staff at (301) 415-2322 or by E-mail at RLB@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, R ch r ector Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF MPearson/RIII DCD (SP07)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
HN;wsome, OGC EWeinstein, AEOD JLynch, Rlli Ohio File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\RLB\\SUPP1008.WPD
- See previous concurrence.
T3 receive e copy of this document,Ind6cate in the bar: 'C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure *E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure
'N' = No copo OFFICE OSP l
OSP:DDl I OGC NMSS AEOD:D l Rlli OSP:pr /
NAME RLBlanton:ca:kk:nb PHLohaus FCameron CJPaperiello TTMartin CPederson RLBafbsh DATE 10/09/98*
10/13/98*
10/08/98*
10/16/98*
10/06/98*
10/09/98*
10p/98 Memo via E-Mail 10/13/98*
via E-Mail OGP FILE CODE: SP-NA-15
\\
j Comments on the Staffina Level
[
- 1. Technical Services Section The staff of three people does not appear to be enough to accomplish the long list of duties listed under the Technical Services Section. There y 3 numerous duties that cover a wide range of topics, some of which will be time-intensive. One of the staff
]
positions is now vacant. The staffing level of the section should be re-evaluated. If the i
staff assigned to the section is to be supplemented by assistance from the staff of other sections, the impacts of such essistance on the other sections should also be evaluated.
f
- 2. Sealed Source and Devices i
Considering the number of SS&D vendors, the Bureau should have at least two fully i
qualified individuals for SS&D reviews. Under staffing could adversely affect the
{
i performance in the SS&D program by restricting the time that could be spent on reviews, the time that could be spent in training to maintain skills, the time necessary to perform evaluations in the case of product failures, and if contractors are used, the time
)
for the management of the contractors. It should be demonstrated how the Bureau staff i
will have adequate time to dedicate to SS&D program activities.
]
j
- 3. Decommissionina i
j The stated basis for the assignment of six staff members to the Decommissioning 1
Section is that this number represents NRC's current level-of-effort. By itself, this comparison is not an adequate rationale for the staffing level, because of the differences j
between the Ohio and the NRC decommissioning programs. In addition to responsibility for decommissioning of Atomic Energy Act license and Site l
Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) sites, the Ohio Decommissioning Section is also assigned responsibility for oversight of Department of Energy, formerly utilized sites remedial action program (FUSRAP) and formerly used defense sites (FUDS). The NRC staff is devoted exclusively to decommissioning at currently licensed v.d SDMP sites. Conversely, regulatory oversight of several SDMP sites is expected to be completed before the Agreement is signed, and these sites will not require any review effort by the State of Ohio. Given this, the Bureau should provide a more detailed basis i
for the staffing level of the Decommissioning Section, including an estimate of the level-j of-effort required for the additional areas that the State is overseeing.
i I
- 4. Licensina and Comoliance The program has two supervisory positions vacant, one in Licensing and one in Non-Medical Inspections. These positions are a fundamental part of the program and should be filled with qualified individuals prior to the signing of an Agreement. The Licensing supervisor is especially critical. Depending on who is hired as the Licensing Supervisor, a significant training period may be needed.
1 ENCLOSURE 1
l
- 4. Licensina and Comoliance (continued)
Currently,8 of 22 licensing and compliance staff positions are vacant, so an adequate review of personnel responsible for canying out the Agreement State program is difficult. Most of the staff vacancies need to be filled by qualified, trained individuals before the effective date of the Agreement.
i l_
Ohio should anticipate that it will receive more than 10 reciprocity requests per year.
4 We suggest that the Ohio reciprocity coordinator discuss this issue with the Region lll reciprocity coordinator, Marcia Pearson. Ms. Pearson may be reached at (630) 829-9840.
i Comment on Staff Trainina and Qualification
- 5. Sealed Source and Devices l
The qualifications of Mr. Owen are not provided. The Qualification Summary for Mr. Von Ahn does not state that he is qualified to perform SS&D reviews (also note the Work Expectations for an HP2, below). There are no position descriptions for the Manager or staff in the Technical Services section.
The Work Expectations for an HP3, under the section "On Going Assignments,"
l Indicates that after competency has been demonstrated on 14 specifically listed areas, the individual may add two areas. One of these is " participate in sealed source and device reviews." It appears that an individual would have to demonstrate competence in l
all 14 listed areas before they could qualify to sign SS&D registration certificates. This l
suggests an extended period of time before qualified SS&D reviewers could be developed.
l The Work Expectations for an HP2, under the section "On Going Assignments,"
indicates that after competency has been demonstrated on 29 specifically listed areas, i
the individual may add four areas. One of these is " assist with research on SS&D reviews." This implies that the HP2 position in the Technical Services Section will not be qualified to sign SS&D registration certificates.
The application indicates that Ohio intends to use contractors to assist in SS&D evaluations. Deta"s of this use should be provided, including the tasks or functions that may be contracted out, the qualifications the contractors will have to meet, and a description of how contractor work will be reviewed.
The application does not address the specific training and qualification program for staff performing SS&D reviews, nor include a specific policy on how SS&D signature i
authority will be granted (i.e., a qualifications program).
i i
2 ENCLOSURE 1 i
i i
_ -. ~ _ -.. ~. - - -. - - - - -. -..
i
- 5. Sealed Source and Devices (continued)
Ohio should provide information regarding formal training, or prior experience, wb!ch demonstrates that Ohio will have at least two staff that would meet the requirements in Management Directive 5.6, which states:
i "All initial and concurrence reviews are performed by persons having adequate training.", and
.... Newly hired employees need to be technically qualified.
Professional staff should have a bachelor's degree o, equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. Both initial and concurrence reviewers should be able to:
Understand and interpret if necessary, appropriate prototype tests that
~
ensure the integrity of the products under normal, and likely accidental, conditions of use, I
Understand and interpret test results, Read and understand blueprints and drawings, Understand how the device works and how safety features operate, Understand and apply appropriate regulations, Understand the conditions of use, UnderstiM extemal dose rates, source activities, and nuclide chemical form, a.1d Understand and utilize basic knowledge of engineering materials and their properties."
i Please note that the staff will also need to evaluate product failures and incidents involving sealed sources and devices to detect possible manufacturing defects and the root causes of these incidents, evaluate the results to determine if other products may be affected by similar problems (i.e., generic with regards to product design and/or use'),
and determine the appropriate action, if any, to avoid a repeat failure.
l-2 3
ENCLOSURE 1
):
4
=e-o,-e-o,.m,.
e, e-,.
ELAPSED-DAY MILESTONE SCllEDULE*
l Elaosed Calendar Davs Action j
0 Receipt of response to comments on staffing and a commitment to have an adequate staff in place by the date the Agreement is to be signed.
i4 Preparation of Commission Paper requesting permission to publish the proposed Agreement in the Federal Reaister.
35 NRC office concurrence on Commission Paper 49 EDO concurrence on Commission Paper 94 Commission approval to publish Proposed Agreement 108 First publication in ER 138 End of public comment period 168 Prepare an analysis of the public comments and a Commission Paper recommending approval of the Agreement and recommending that the Chairman sign the Agreement upon Ohio having completed staff hiring and qualification.
182 EDO concurrence on Commission Paper 232 Commission approval of Agreement HOLD, IF NECESSARY, PENDING COMPLETION OF STAFF HIRING AND QUALIFICATION BY OHIO TBD Signing of Agreement l
TBD Effective date of Agreement
- Assumes all other NRC staff comments identified in the July 29,1998, letter from R. Bangart to R. Suppes are resolved, no new issues are identified, NRC staff review of selected Ohio procedures is completed, and the issue regarding decommissioning restricted release is resolved in parallel.
1 ENCLOSURE 2 t