ML20195G549
| ML20195G549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/16/1998 |
| From: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195G531 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811230023 | |
| Download: ML20195G549 (3) | |
Text
. . _ . _ . . . . - . _ . - .. _ _ __ . . - .
e nag
% UNITED STATES I [,
t j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001
- p# October 16, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard L. Bargart, Director Office of State Programs FROM: Carl J. P Direct
- Office at an eguards ,
i
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF OHIO in response to your memorandum of September 25,1998, NMSS concurs on the draft letter to Roger Suppes of the Ohio Bureau of Radiation Protection with the incorporation of NMSS comments (attached). On page 2 of Enclosure 1, the first two sentences of the second paragraph should be dropped ("The time...Also"). The projections for time spent on reciprocity requests is a minor detail that may be dealt with in discussions. Rill and OSP staff do not l object to this change.
Attachment:
As stated l
CONTACT: Paul F. Goldberg, NMSS/IMNS (301) 415-7842 l
b
?
-4 ya en
~c
~
g 9
t
[ '9811230023 981028 ?
a- PDR STPRO ESCOH
?/ p r < ._ a v . -
Currently,8 of 22 licensing and compliance staff positions are vacant, so an adequate
- - review of personnel responsible for carrying 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.
hhe time projections for handling reciprocity requests appears to be very high. Ohio estimates that each reciprocity request will require 12 technical staff-hours to review. In the NRC Regions, reciprocity requests are handled administratively and require much less than 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to review. Also], Ohio should anticipate that it will receive more than 10 reciprocity requests per year. We suggest that the Ohio reciprocity coordinator discuss this issue with the Region ill reciprocity coordinator, Marcia Pearson.
Ms. Pearson may be reached at (630) 829-9040.
Comment on Staff Trainina and Qualification
- 5. Sealed Spurce and Devices 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. l The Work Expectations for an HP3, under the section "On Going Assignments,"
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 appeam that an individual would have to demonstrate competence in all 14 listed areas before they could qualify to sign SS&D registration certificates. This suggests an extended period of time before qualified SS&D reviewers could be developed.
The Work Expectations for en HP2, under the section "On Going Assignments,"
indicates that efter competency has been demonstrated on 29 specifically listed areas, 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 certifk:ates.
The application indicates that Ohio intends to use contractors to assist in SS&D evaluations. Details 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 e.
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 authority will be granted (i.e., a qualifications program).
- 5. Sealed Source and Devices (continued) 2 ENCLOSURE 1 1
f\h ftO h{ -l
~~k 9f IUf
- Mr. Roger L. Suppes, Chief g h^ [ 5 .
Bureau of Radiation Protection 9 ,1 7 (f , d Ohio Depar+ ment of Health i
,! g 35 East Chestnut Street Columbus, OH 43266-0118 g {
t 0 W "i l>
Dear Mr. Suppes:
y a\fjM w
in our letter of June 18,1998, we identifie 'two ajor issues regarding your draft application for an Agreement.KOne of these issues conte the number and qualifications of the staff to be employed in the Agreement materials program. This issue has also been discussed by NRC staff in telephone conversations with you and members of your staff.
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 staffing plan and the analysis. Based on our review, we believe the Technical Services Section to be understaffed, given the broad scope of its responsibilities. We are also concemed that because the Decommissioning Section has responsibilities for additional programs not overseen by NRC, basing the section's staffing on a comparison to NRC's staffing, is not 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 appears sufficient to adversely impact 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 workloads, considering the 13 SS&D manufacturers in Ohio that currently have active registration sheets. The SS&D program also p requires very specific technical training and experience, even for the proposed supervision of y contract SS&D evaluators. Additional comments on these issues are enclosed (Enclosure 1).
/ We conclude that the Bureau will not be adequately staffed to assume the regulatory authority
{ g being requested until: (1) the licensing and non-medical inspection supervisor positions are filled with qualified individuals, (2) most of the other staff vacanciec are filled with qualified gy p; f]y individuals, (3) at least two individuals are fully qualified to perform SS&D revie f U 4 distribution of qualified licensing and inspection staff is reasonably matched to the regulatory workload in each of the categories of licensees that will be transferred.
,p To minimize any delay in concluding the Agreement, we are prepared to recommend that the
,y Commission give approval for publication of the proposed Agreement in the federal Reoister f 5M prior to your attainment of adequate staffing. This recommendation would be conditioned on
\ feasible commitments by you to: (1) fill the staff vacancies, (2) qualify the staff according to '
g 10 Nyouttraining and qualification procedu e BRP-IN 100, and (3) address the staff level and distribution concerDs discus 56Dbov , After the public comr..ent period, we would forward the h' fAWbnt~f5 thTCommission forlinal' 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 k '/'
on exempt consumer items, and any public comments, are resolved.
V J Jpp M AM" '
$hz hW pc $ ed WM k[l ATTACHMENT 5 b' [ .
a y ansm os m 4
$$