ML20196K159
| ML20196K159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196K164 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9812300042 | |
| Download: ML20196K159 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _
MEMORANDUM TO: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
M Deputy Executive Director , NOV 191998
- i for Regulatory Programs FROM
- Richard L. Bangart, Director original Signed By:
Office of State Programs PAUL H. LOHAUS
SUBJECT:
REVISED FINAL IMPEP REPORT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK Attached is the revised final report on the IMPEP review for the State of New York. The review team has revised the report based on the September 1,1998 MRB meeting and the subsequent MRB deliberations by E-mail. The MRB directed the review team to revise Section 4.2 of the report. T;.e MRB voted by E-mail on the revised Section 4.2 and the team's recommendations and find;ng for the Sealed Source and Device program evaluation. The MRB members were sent a copy of revised Section 4.2 and voted on the revised section prior to transmittal to New York. Four MRB members (DEDR, OSP, AEOD, and NMSS) agreed with the team's recominendations and finding. OGC agreed with the recommendations but thought the finding should be "no finding." The State Liaison to the MRB agreed with New York's recommendation that the team's recommendations be made into suggestions and that the finding be "no finding." The MRB vote was that the team should send the report to New York as written.
Section 4.2 was revised as directed by the MRB and sent to New York for comment. The New York State Department of Labor comments and the review team's analysis of the comments are attached to the revised final report. All other revisions to reflect the actions during the September 1,1998 MRB meeting have been made and the report is ready to be sent to New York to complete the IMPEP review process.
We have sent copies of the revised final report to all MRB members and recommend that, if there are no significant objections raised by the MRB members within a week, that you sign the letter to the four New York programs transmitting the revised final report if you have any questions on the revised final report, please contact the team leader, Dennis Sollenberger at 301-415-2819 or E-mail him at DMS4@NRC. GOV.
Attachment:
As stated cc: MRB Members:
Paul Lohaus, OSP r~
Frank Congel, AEOD "
Stuart Treby, OGC - -
Donald Cool, NMSS '/
Roland Fletcher, OAS State of Maryland l
Distribution: See next page PoR (Yes) 0030 oco (spot)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\NYLTRRFR.DMS To necehse a copr of thle docu,nont. Indicate in the bar: "C" = My with attachment /enclosur[N c py with attachrnentepnclosure "N"= No copy OFFICE OSP M blE OSP:@f,/lC OSFfgMg/ r NAME DSollenberMr:gd:nb PHLohhus" RLBanger# "Dr DATE 11//798 11/\998 11/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-20; SP-20-1; SP-AG-20-2; SP-AG-20-3; SP-AG-20-4 9812300042 981119 PDR STPRO ESONY PDR
l' l .
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr. Distribution:
- DIR.RF (8G621)
SDroggitis KSchneider LRakovan DWhite, RI JCameron, Rlll
- MStephens, FL
-AGrewe, TN LCox, NC JCook, RIV New York File l
t -
p 4 g 8 4 UNITED STATES
[
j t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 8 November 19, 1998
. . . . . ,o MEMORANDUM TO: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs b
FROM: Richard L. Bangart, Director /
Office of State Programs ( h v/ \
gvf4 )
SUBJECT:
REVISED FINAL IMPEP REPORT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK Attached is the revised final report on the IMPEP review for the State of New York. The review team has revised the report based on the Septembar 1,1998 MRB meeting and the subsequent MRB deliberations by E-mail. The MRB directed the review team to revise Section 4.2 of the report. The MRB voted by E-mail on the revised Section 4.2 and the team's recommendations and finding for the Sealed Source and Device program evaluation. The MRB members were sent a copy of revised Section 4.2 and voted on the revised section prior to transmittal to New York. Four MRB members (DEDR, OSP, AEOD, and NMSS) agreed with the team's recommendations and finding. OGC agreed with the recommendations but thought the finding should be "no finding." l he State Liaison to the MRB agreed with New York's recommendation that the team's recommendations be made into suggestions and that the finding be "no finding." The MRB vote was that the team should send the report to New York as written.
Section 4.2 was revised as directed by the MRB and sent to New York for comment. The New York State Department of Labor comments and the review teamb analysis of the comments are attached to the revised final report. All other revisions to reflect the actions during the September 1,1998 MRB mer#ng have been made and the report is ready to be sent to New York to complete the IMPEP eview process.
We have sent copies of the revised final report to all MRB members and recommend that, if there are no significant objections raised by the MRB memb3rs within a week, that you sign the letter to the four New York programs transmitting the revis' d final report. If you have any questions on the revised final report, please contact the team leader, Dennis Sollenberger at 301-415-2819 or E-mail him at DMS4@NRC. GOV.
Attachment:
As stated cc: MRB Members:
Paul Lohaus, OSP Frank Congel, AEOD Stuart Treby, OGC Donald Cool, NMSS Roland Fletcher, OAS State of Maryland
- - - $*M.",W,WT'W'"W* yyM @ WfWM - - , PW v -- 77 ' , ' " . * ~ T~ v r - rTNy STATE PROGRAMS' OFFICE TRACKING SYSTEME J c*
-- 3 s !,
. -: ACTIVE PROJECTS 1
+
m ,
j a
, it, d+
s.- .. .ij . , s.
Date: l; 10/20/98 h a . l i
,.. :- : .= u +
- 4
, i PmjectID: l8G621 $/
' ~
' j
-p. _
q ProjeclDescripilon:
" REVISION OF THE SEALED SOURCE AND DEVICE SECTION OF THE NEW YORK IMPEP (f ' s 4 .'4 i L }lR- - 1 :4 v- NyM ,a wew- a --+-.-.ee
$wmg + .mp e- -+ - ~ . . + -
StorIDale' -..-v. l 10/20/98[ Odginal Date: l . 11/2/98.p ' ProjeclLeod: fjg[((t_
. g.c --.
{3tJ].y;7
,- , ,.j f_t![ 0, y Compiellon Doie: l. l[ ' Due Dolo: j 11/2/98[, :. g , .y
, ./g ,
. status:
, d
- w. a
....q,..77._.~- s..m..e.-,u_%..~,, . . . ....~,--y ,,,q., %q 9 . %gn. , , ,
gg ..
Requester /Omce: l ALDRICH.
...m_.-ey NYDOL_. _ _ _ jf -
.., r . , . , .se M
9 t \
, , r #
t- -
3 -
2 Extension W !
-E D Extension Date: ' l --.~..,~._.n lh.
'O RITS Code: , lJ00030-g7;+ d' ' PA.,,,.,,,m -
No: l _ m .. gJfc' , -
yn .,.
/
4 % ..
f
.I-
~ y
-: \'
.M -d- Mesk.-
s.
Mk s ee,4 . shi4mfA W e a : M ," Ad b e hl f (
\
i .s >
, / / (( h -
/
i T
ACTION EDO Principal Correspondence Control PROM DUE: / / EDO CONTROL: Gl9980621 DOC DT: 10/13/98 FINAL REPLY:
Ritn Aldrich 5 tats of New York 3epartment of Labor 00:
Thompson, DEDR FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO:
3 ESC:
ROUTING:
REVISION OF THE SEALED SOURCE AND DEVICE (SS&D) Travers
.SECTION OF THE NEW YORK Ti. PEP Thompson Norry Blaha Burns Miller, RI DATE '10/19/98 Paperiello,NMSS Cyr, OGC ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:
l SP Bangart __
$PECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
'For Appropriate Action.
8
.o m ^3 5
9
STATE OF NEW YORK
. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF SAFETY AND HEALTH Radiological Health Unit Building #12, Room 134-A i State Office Building Campus !
Albany,NY 12240 October 13,1998 :
TO: Hugh Thompson, USNRC Richard Bangart, USNRC Karen Cyr, USNRC Carl Paperiello, USNRC Thomas Martin, USNRC Roland Fletcher, State of Maryland FROM: Rita Aldrich We have received and reviewed Richard Bangart's letter of October 2,1998, and the enclosed revision of the Scaled Source & Device (SS&D) section of the New York IMPEP report on our February,1998 l review. We note that although some of the language has been modified the findings are unchanged.
l We have also polled other Agreement States on what SS&D reviewer's checklist (s) they were using,if !
any. Responses indicate that they are under the impression that NRC wants them to use the checklist in j NUREG 1550 (or 1556), as is, since this is what was used in the NRC SS&D workshops. One state l reported that conversations with NRC staff had convinced them that NRC had "no tolerance for customized or improved checklists."
We have also obtained a copy of the "lMPEP Regulatory Review Scaled Source & Device Reviewer Guidance." Strangely enough the guidance includes a checklist that parallels the NUREG checklist.
indicating clearly that the NUREG checklist is the model expected to be in use by the states during IMPEPS.
Yet we continue to be criticized for placing " primary emphasis on the use of the checklist ... as an all inclusive review document," even though it was used for the review of an ultimately simpic device and nothing was overlooked as a result ofits use. Curious.
We have also reviewed the Texas (June,1997) and Illinois (March,1997) IMPEP report sections on their SS&D evaluation programs. Based on the issues raised, criticisms made and responses accepted by their IMPEP teams, and the fact that both programs were fbund to be satisfactory, our program should clearly be found satisfactory. We would be happy to present a point-by-point comparison between what was accepted by the Texas and Illinois IMPEP teams as justifying a finding of fully " satisfactory" fbr those states, versus what was fbund insufficient to support such a finding for our program. However, in the interest of brevity, I would like to point out the following inconsistencies:
- 1. We were criticized for perceived shortcomings in cur concurrence review fbr the one SS&D evaluation performed (which criticism we categorically disagree with).
EDO -- G980621 FAX: 518-485-7406 Tslephone: 518-457-1202 W N 72 G.5 5 ^ She
\
2- l 1
I Texas was judged to have overlooked a serious discrepancy in an applicant's submission that I would probably have been caught by a concurrence review. The product involved was a radiographic exposure device. The IM PEP team recommended that "the state review the issue of ;
concurrence reviews for SS&D safety evaluations and implement procedures that require an )
independent review for all future evaluations."
Conclusion:
i Texas did not perform a concurrence review of a high hazard device evaluation in which the IMPEP team reported a significant discrepancy in the applicant's submission.
We did perfbrm a concurrence review of a low hazard device evaluation in which no significant discrepancies were found, but were criticized for not having "a clear policy for what constitutes a concurrence review."
. Texas was found satisfactory but we need improvement. L
- 2. We were criticized because staff did not refer to draft regulations before allowing use of a leak test interval of 13 months, even though the rationale for the 13 month interval was explained to the reviewer during the IMPEP.
' Illinois allowed a 36 month leak test interval fbr a device based on a comparison with similar model devices. The IMPEP report merely " suggested" that the basis fbr the decision be documented in the registry file.
Conclusion:
We allowed a 13 month leak test interval for a device because the source used was approved fbr a 13 month interval, and were criticized fbr staff's not being " aware of the specific requirements contained in the draft regulations" and not consulting them during the review.
Illinois allowed a 36 month interval, has the same regulations in place that we have in draft, and was not criticized for not consulting them. i The two programs made decisions based on very similar reasoning. It was acceptable in one case but not in the other. Illinois was found satisfactory but we need improvement.
- 3. The Illinois SS&D staff have college and graduate school degrees similar to our staff's , and a statement is made in their report that "all members are trained in health physics principles and have attended at least one SS&D workshop." It is also stated that if needed, the program can obtain engineering assistance from professional engineers who work in other programs. It is also stated that the head reviewer demonstrated to the IMI EP team "an ability to understand and interpret the information submitted by applicants as described in the performance criteria, including engineering-related issues."(emphasis added)
i l
'. Everything stated above concerning the Illinois staffis true of our staff. The section could have been used verbatim in our report, but it was not. Instead we were criticized for our staff not having "fonnal training or prior design analysis experience in all areas listed in MD5.6," and were told that we should develop an elaborate training program. !
Conclusion:
. 1 4
lilinois staff were evaluated against the criteria in MD5.6 and found satisfactory.
We were not evaluated against the criteria ic MD5.6, which is limited to staff having speified basic " abilities," but apparently against the IMPEP reviewer's personal criteria which rquire "fbrmal training or prior design analysis experience." We have qualifications identical to those of Illinois program staff, who are satisfactory, but we are being told that we need improvement.
- 4. Neither the Texas nor the Illinois report used the tenn " signature authority," nor made any reference to a "fbrmal qualification program" for granting such authority. This is not surprising, however, because the terminology does not appear in MD5.6, although reference is made to states having a program for training and qualification of personnel. Yet our IMPEP report contains a discussion of our need for an elaborate " qualification program" and "fonnal written process" fbr
" signature authority" to ensure that " reviewers meet the qualifications listed in MD5.6."
Our program has adopted the recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission /OAS Training Working Group on Training requirements, and all of our staff have had the " basic" training specified on page 3 of the report (1 mis-referenced this as " core" training during our MRB discussion), as well as extensive additional training. All of this training is documented in our consolidated computer training file which was shown to the IMPEP team.
In addition to this training, our two SS&D reviewers have attended the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's workshop on the perfbrmance of SS&D evaluations. Following this, I authorized them to perform and sign SS&D evaluations; one as the lead reviewer and the other as the concurrence reviewer. These constitute our qualifying procedures for the staff who perform SS&D evaluations. I would draw your attention to page 1 of the Training Working Group Report, which states that "the number ofinspector or license reviewer positions in an individual Agreement State may not warrant the development of extremely detailed qualifying procedures."
The report goes on to recommend that states develop lists of positions and basic training requirements for them, and have some method to sign ofTon completed areas of training, although some of the requirements may be included in hiring requirements. We believe we have done that, as I explained during the MRB meeting.
Conclusion:
The Texas and Illinois programs were found satisfactory by their IMPEP teams under the direction of Richard Woodruff, with no discussion of fbnnal qualification pmgrams fbr signature authority.
- - .- - - -,- __ .. .- . . . . - - ~ -
j
. )
Neither MD5.6 nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission /OAS Working Group Report requires !
such a program. l We conduct our program in the same manner as Texas and Illinois; our staff have similar qualifications; their training is documented; and I have authorized them to perfbnn and sign SS&D evaluations. Texas and Illinois were found satisfactory but we are being told that we need improvement.
1 l
We have also reviewed the SS&D section of the proposed IMPEP Report for Rhode Island; a program very similar to our own in size and scope.
For example, Rhode Island performed one SS&D evaluation during the review period, and has two staff !
involved in the program - neither of which has an engineering background or other ihmial training, other than attendance at an NRC SS&D workshop.
The SS&D section of the Rhode Island report is one page in length, which is remarkable to begin with, compared to four pages for our report. Comments included in the Rhode Island report include the i following. j l
- The SS&D review checklist received at the NRC SS&D workshop was used to assure all l relevant materials had been submitted and reviewed," and "The team determined that the staff will use the guidance in NUREG-1556, Vol. 3, for any future reviews."
- The team found that the two reviewers work toge'.fier closely when conducting a review and l
discuss issues and concerns they have identified in an application."
{
l
- The ORH also indicated that they would draw upon resources outside of their office if necessary. Outside resources could include State engineers or the local University engineering department, the NRC SS&D Section or another Agreement State," and that the ORif "would, if l necessary, send their reviewers fbr additional training." '
Rhode Island's SS&D Program was found satisfactory. If the members of the MRB will review the comparable paragraphs in the New York State report, we believe that the inconsistencies with the approach used in Rhode Island's review will be quite obvious.
l The situation that New York finds itselfin defies logic. If we had not adopted all of NRC's guidance I documents in the SS&D area; had not used a reviewer's checklist or used one very different from the l NUREG model; had not performed a concurrence review; had not sent our SS&D reviewers to NRC's SS&D workshop; did not have additional engineering expertise at our disposal; and had not produced a satisfactory SS&D evaluation sheet, we could make some sense out of the criticisms in this report.
However, having done all of the above, and having demonstrated in our previous comments on this section of the IMPEP report that we meet all of the criteria in MD5.6 for a inding of satisfactory, we do not intend to waste any more of our program's time and resources on this issue.
I
i
.. l l
NRC did not follow its own procedures in the review of our SS&D program, and did not apply the criteria l in MD5.6. State programs that were reviewed against those criteria, such as Texas, Illinois and Rhode Island, and were found satisfactory, were not criticized fbr a lack of formal training in engineering, or ihr )
using NRC's checklist (uncustomized) and following the review process taught at NRC's SS&D ,
workshop, or for working closely and jointly on evaluations, or for not having a fbrmal qualification ;
program for " signature authority." !
We do not see how any unbiased person could read the IMPEP reports of the Texas, Illinois, Rhode Island and New York State Department Of Labor SS&D programs and conclude that we are being treated fairly.
)
I am personally shocked at the disparities which we found when we reviewed the other states' reports.
Based on the criteria used fbr the Texas, Illinois and Rhode Island programs we must be found fully satisfactory or this process iias no credibility.
Sincerely, ;
e ,
ilA Rita Aldrich Principal Radiophysicist RA:jmp ec: Karim Rimawi Gene Miskin Paul Merges Jack Spath Richard Cucolo Shirley Jackson i i
i l
4 l
l 4
4 1
4
, ,,4 OFFICE.OF THE SECRETARY 0 ff(L(
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET 9 l GQ80
- PAPER NUMBER: CRC-98-0962 LOGGING DATE: Cat 16 98 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: RITA ALDRICH ,
AFFILIATION: NEW YORK I ADDRESSEE: THOMPSON, BANGART, NRC LETTER DATE: Oct 13 98 FILE CODE: ID&R 15
SUBJECT:
REVISION OF THE SEALED SOURCE & DEVICE (SS&E)
SECTION OF THE NY IMPEP j ACTION: Appropriate DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN, COMRS.
]
SPECIAL HANDLING:
CONSTITUENT:
- NOTES:
DATE DUE:
SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED: ,
AFFILIATION: l i
bO11L(LeJC 0
b ha cc&udt
% de W t tuihi d AOCl vpt
- C, l99 ho al .
OudJ /
b 2
l