ML20204C032
| ML20204C032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/24/1999 |
| From: | Miraglia F NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Aldrich R NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204C036 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9903220360 | |
| Download: ML20204C032 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:9 NOf$fD (. p arrg k-j g UNITED STATES lp g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f f WASHINGTON, D.C. annan anni %,,o February 24, 1999 Ms. Rita Aldrich, Principal Radiophysicist Radiological Health Unit i _ Division of Safety and Health New York State Department of Labor State Office Building Campus, Building 12, Room 134-A Albany, NY 12240
Dear Ms. Aldrich:
l I am responding to your January 11,1999 letter to Chairman Jackson and the individual l-Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In your letter, you objected to the final report for the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the New York State Agreement program. In particular, you objected to the sealed source and device (SS&D) section of the final report, where the New York State Department of Labor i (NYDL) received ranking of satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. The revised final report was sent to the four New York regulatory agencies by letter dated November 30, 1998. You requested that your letter be considered a formal protest against the manner in which the SS&D program was reviewed, and you concluded the letter by requesting that the SS&D section of the November 30,1998 report be withdrawn. Your letter also raised other specific concerns on the SS&D program review which are addressed in the enclosure to this letter. The other recommendations in the revised final report for the NYDL program were not addressed in your January 11,1999 letter. Other than the reference to Mr. McNees' letter, your January 11,1999 letter does not appear to raise new issues or additional facts that were not considered earlier in the development of the revised final report. Since the IMPEP process is a team approach and any individual bias would be addressed in the team's deliberations, as was done in this case, the SS&O rating and recommendations for the NYDL program, as approved by the Management Review Board and presented in the revised final report, still stand. NRC has initicted an evaluation of Mr. McNees' concern. I will provide you the results of this evaluation when completed. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact me at 301-415-1713 or Mr. Paul H. Lohaus, Director, Office of State Programs at 301-415-2326. Sincerely, I r d' _ _ L c,jn vWrd. v Frank J. dglia, Jr. 9903220360 990224 ) PDR STPRO ESON Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs
Enclosure:
As stated I cc: R. Cucolo E5 0S - f% h OL g h[ P. Chiefari Agreement States 3P-AGQo-3
t J Specific Concerns Raised in the January 11,1999 Letter from Rita Aldrich, NYDL. The specific areas of concern identified in the January 11,1999 letter are: (1) hcw the SS&D portion of the review was conducted, (2) the specific recommendations for documentation of program guidance and policy (concurrence review policy, training requirements, customized review procedures), (3) the training in engineering principles and SS&D evaluation experience, (4) the NYDL program compared to other States' SS&D programs, and (5) regulatory requirements for issuance of SS&D registry sheets. Each of these concerns are separately addressed below. (1) How the SS&D portion of the review was conducted. The NRC staff used the criteria in Management Directive (MD) 5.6 in conducting the review. You are correct in that the reviewer applied a slightly different evaluation approach for this portion of the program. The criteria in MD 5.6 for the SS&D program are prescriptive. The reviewer took the approach that the State should demonstrate specifically how the program met each criterion. The limited activity of the NYDL program in the SS&D area made this demonstration difficult. The Management Review Board (MRB) considered this fact and discussed how the limited review activity should be reflected in the report and the MRB rating determination for this non-common performance indicator. The MRB directed the team to revise the report with consideration of your comments. The revised final report reflected review team consideration of your comments, but also documented the areas where the review team did not believe a demonstration that the MD 5.6 criteria were clearly met. The State, specifically the NYDL, reviewed the revision to the SS&D section and provided comments that were addressed by the review team (see Attachment 3 to the revised final report). Both the revised SS&D section and the review team's ar:alysis of the NYDL comments were reviewed by the individual MRB members and approved by majority vote of the MRB prior to their inclusion into the revised final report. The recommendations in the revised final report are programmatic in nature and were meant to help the NYDL program to make such a demonstration in future reviews. In addition, as a result of the issues identified in your comments, and discussed during the MRB meeting, including results from other States' SS&D reviews, the MRB directed the staff to evaluate how the SS&D criteria should be revised to address limited scope SS&D programs and the prescriptiveness in the criteria. The MRB noted the staff should also have the benefit of the results of the Organization of Agreement States'(OAS) review of NRC's SS&D program in considering changes to the SS&D evaluation criteria. This evaluation will be conducted upon completion of the OAS team's evaluation of NRC's SS&D program under the MD 5.6 criteria. The letter from Mr. McNees was referred to the reviewer's office director and a separate evaluation o' the concerns raised in the letter is being conducted. (2) The specific recommendations for docurnentation of program guidance and policy (concurrence review policy, training requirements, customized review procedures). These items define the SS&D program and ensure that the program should result in qualit) 3S&D evaluations. The NRC SS&D procedures, that were being used in the NYDL program, are comprehensive in nature and were not being used as intended by NRC. Given the limited scope of products manufactured in the State of New York, the review team recommendet : hat NYDL customize their review procedures so that the key radiological and safety concerns could be identified and highlighted for future reviews. The customized procedures would reduce the level of effort on future SS&D evaluations as well as focus the SS&D evaluation on the significant issues for the types of sources and devices in New York. The next review team
a t ,e 2-could narrow the scope of the next IMPEP program evaluation to that defined in the NYDL customized procedures. (3) The training in engineering principles and SS&D evaluation experience. The review team's recommendations in this area were to bring the current staff to a level that they would meet the criteria in MD 5.6 and have demonstrated this ability through SS&D reviews that were evaluated by a qualified reviewer prior to performing independent SS&D reviews along with issuing SS&D sheets for those reviews. We believe this issue was addressed in Attachment 3 to the revised final report and will not be discussed further. (4) The NYDL SS&D program compared to other States' SS&D programs. The comparisons made between the NYDL SS&D program and other Agreement States' SS&D programs were also addressed in Attachment 3 to the revised final report and will not be discussed further. (5) The regulatory requirements for issuance of SS&D registry sheets. You have correctly stated the regulatory requirements for SS&D registration in 10 CFR 32.210. The NRC practice has been to also issue SS&D registration sheets for generally licensed (GL) devices, although not required by regulation. The issuance of GL registration sheets makes available nationwide the information for these devices (that the devices have been evaluated and their specific conditions of use). The evaluation criteria for approval of a device though license condition without the issuance of an SS&D registration sheet is similar to the process for issuance of the sheet. The SS&D evaluation whether conducted under requirements equivalent to 10 CFR 32.51 or 32.210 would be evaluated as part of the State's SS&D evaluation program. The NRC staff will clarify this issue as part of its re-evaluation of the SS&D section of MD 5.6.
Qs. Rit Aldrich, Princip:1 Radiophysicist Raqiologic;l H:alth Unit Diviston of S;ftty end H::alth New igrk State Department of Labor State Of(ice Building Campus, Building 12, Room 134 A Albany, N 12240
Dear Ms. Ald ' h:
I am responding your January 11,1999 letter to Chairman Jackson and the individual Commissioners of t e Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In your letter, you expressed concern with the Ne ork State Department of Labor's (NYDL) Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) section of the r ised final report for the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review f the New York State Agreement program. The revised final report was sent to the four New Y k regulatory agencies by letter dated November 30,1998. You requested that your letter be nsidered a formal protest against the manner in which the SS&D program was reviewed, and yon concluded the letter by requesting that the SS&D section of the s November 30,1998 report be wit rawn. Your letter also raised other specific concerns on the SS&D program review which are a ressed in the enclosure to this letter. The other recommendations in the revised final eport for the NYDL program were not addressed in your January 11,1999 letter. Other than the reference to Mr. McNees' letter, your January 11,1999 letter does not appear to raise new issues or additional facts that werepot considered earlier in the development of the revised final report. Since the IMPEP processh a team approach and any individual bias would be addressed in the team's deliberations,b was done in this case, the SS&D rating and recommendations for the NYDL program, as approyed by the Management Review Board and presented in the revised final report, still stand. NR has initiated an evaluation of M McNees' concern. ! will provide you the results of this evaluatio when completed. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please ntact me at 301-415-1713 or Mr. Paul H. Lohaus, Acting Director, Office of State Programs at 301-415-2326. Sincerely, Frank J. Miraglia, ,r. Deputy Executive Di(ector for Regulatory Prog' ms
Enclosure:
As stated "This correspondence formulates poli or expands, cc: R. Cucolo revises, or interprets pol;cy, involves matters pending P. Chiefari , Commission decision, contains items relatihg to the Agreement States performance of Commission duties and resp 6psibilities, Qistribution: or involves items of high Commission interest." EDO RF (G19990025) SECY (CRC-99-0029) DIR RF (9G025) DCD (SP05) SDroggitis PDR (YESj__ NO ) NY Dept. of Labor File \\ DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\NYDL99LT.DS2
- See previous concur 'ence.
Tm receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with attachment /enclosij i
- N* e No copy OFFICE OSP OSP:AD NMSS:D DEDE,
VHf4 l OCM NAME DSollenberger:kk PHLohaus CPaperiello EJMSh$#1 WDMv4rs DATE 01/27/99* 01/28/99* 01/ 28/99* 7 O W 7p9 02/%9 - 02a5/99 / OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-20-3
4 Ms. Ritt Aldrich, Princip:1 Radiop ysicist Radiological Health Unit Division of Safety and Health New York State Department of Lab State Office Building Campus, Buildi 12, Room 134-A Albany, NY 12240
Dear Ms. Aldrich:
I am responding to your January 11,199 letter to Chairman Jackson and the individual Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory ommission (NRC). In your letter, you objected to the final report for the Integrated Materials erformance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the New York State Agreement program. In articular, you objected to the sealed source and device (SS&D) section of the final report, wh re the New York State Department of Labor (NYDL) received ranking of satisfactory with r commendations for improvement. The revised final report was sent to the four New York reg tory agencies by letter dated November 30, 1998. You requested that your letter be consid red a formal protest against the manner in i which the SS&D program was reviewed, and yo concluded the letter by requesting that the SS&D section of the November 30,1998 report b withdrawn. Your letter also raised other specific concerns on the SS&D program review w ich are addressed in the enclosure to this letter. The other recommendations in the revised f al report for the NYDL program were not addressed in your January 11,1999 letter. Other than the reference to Mr. McNees' letter, your J nuary 11,1999 letter does not appear to raise new issues or additional facts that were not consi ered earlier in the development of the revised final report. Since the IMPEP process is a tea approach and any individual bias would be addressed in the team's deliberations, as was one in this case, the SS&D rating and recommendations for the NYDL program, as approved b the Management Review Board and presented in the revised final report, still stand. NRC has itiated an evaluation of Mr. McNees' concern. I will provide you the results of this evaluation wh n completed. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please con et me at 301-4151713 or Mr. Paul H. Lohaus, Director, Office of State Programs at 301415-2326. Sincerely, Frank J. Mirag 'a, Jr. Deputy Executi e Director for Regulatory rograms
Enclosure:
As stated "This correspondence formulate policy or expands, cc: R. Cucolo revises, or interprets policy, invol s matters pending P. Chiefari Commission decision, contains ite s relating to the Agreement States performance of Commission duties nd responsibilities, Distribution: or involves items of high Commissio interest." EDO RF (G19990025) SECY (CRC-99-0029) DIR RF (9G025) DCD (SP05) SDroggitis PDR (YES.f_ NO ) NY Dept. of Labor File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\NYDL99LT.DS2
- See previous concu rence.
Ta receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure 'E = Copy with attachment /enclosu 'N' = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSP:AD NMSS:D l DEDR l EDO\\ OCM NAME DSollenberger:kk PHLohaus CPaperiello FJMiraglia WDTrave\\s DATE 01/27/99* 01/28/99* 01/28/99* 02/ /99 02/ /49 02/ /99 OSP FILE ODE: SP-AG-20-3
Ms. Rita Aldrich, Principal Ridiophysicist Ridiological He-ith Unit I Division of Safaty and H=lth New York State Department of Labor State Office Building Campus, Building 12, Room 134-A Albany, NY 12240
Dear Ms. Aldrich:
I am responding to your January 11,1999 letter to Chalpnan Jackson and the individual Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In your letter, you expressed concem with the New York State Department of Labor' (NYDL) Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) section of the revised final report for the Integ ted Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the New York State Agre ent program. The revised final report was se.nt to the four New York regulatory agencies by' letter dated November 30,1998. You l ' requested that your letter be considered a formal pro st against the manner in which the SS&D i program was reviewed, and you concluded the letter y requesting that the SS&D section of the November 30,1998 report be withdrawn. Your lette also raised other specific concems on the SS&D program review which are addressed in the e sure to this letter. The other recommendations in the revised final report for the YDL program were not addressed in your January 11,1999 letter. Other than the reference to Mr. McNees' letter, yo r January 11,1999 letter does not appear to raise new issues or bring additional facts to light tijat were not considered earlier in the development of the revised final report. I request that you allow us the opportunity to complete j our evaluation of Mr. McNees' concems. At that Jime, I will consider your protest and request to withdraw the SS&D portion of the revised final re rt. If you hsve any additional questions or concems, please contact me at 301-415-1713 or Mr. Paul H. Lohaus, Acting Director, Office of Sfate Programs at 301-415-2326. Sincerely, Frank J. Miraglia, Jr. Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs
Enclosure:
As stated 1 cc: R. Cucolo P. Chiefari Agreement States Distribution: EDO RF (G19990025) SECY (CRC-99-0029)~ DCD (SP05) DIR RF (9G025) SDroggitis PDR (YES_f_ NO ) NY Dept. of Labor File DOCUMENT NAME: GANYDL99LT.DS2 Ta receive e cop r of Wile document, Indicate in the tros: 'C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure T = Copy with attachment /anciosure "N' = No copy OFFICE OSPa@l OSP:AD I NMSS:D l l DEDR l EDO l OCM l NAME DSollenbMer:kk PHLohaus '/ CPaperiplioTN FJMiraglia WDTravers DATE 01/ @ 99 01/ /99 / 01/Qh/99 01/ /99 01/ /99 / /99 / OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-20-3 / i
a-Ms. Rits Aldrich, Princip:1 R:diophysicist - Ridiological H: lth Unit Division of Safety end Hsalth New York State Department of Labor State Office Building Campus, Building 12, m 134-A Albany, NY 12240
Dear Ms. Aldrich:
I am responding to your January 11,1999 letter to Chairman Jackson and the individual Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Com ission (NRC), in yourletter, you expressed concern with the New York State Department of abor's (NYDL) Sealed Source and Device q (SS&D) section of the revised final report for the I tegrated Materials Performance Evaluation.- Program (IMPEP) review of the New York State A reement program. The revised final report was sent to the four New York regulatory agencies y letter dated November 30,1998. You requested that your letter be considered a formal p test against the manner in which the SS&D program was reviewed, and you concluded the lette by requesting that the SS&D section of the November 30,1998 report be withdrawn. Your lette Iso raised other specific concems on the SS&D program review which are addressed in the en osure to this letter. The other recommendations in the revised final report for the N L program were not addressed in your January 11,1999 letter. Other than the reference to Mr. McNees' letter, your Ja ary 11,1999 letter does not appear to raise new issues or bring additional facts to light that weh not considered earlier in the j development of the revised final report. I request that you allow us the opportunity to complete our evaluation of Mr. McNees' concerns. At that time, I whl consider your protest and request to j withdraw the SS&D portion of the revised final report. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please co ' tact me at 301-415-1713 or Mr. Paul H. Lohaus, Acting Director, Office of State' Progra at 301-415-2326. Sincerely, Frank J. Mi glia, Jr. Deputy Ex 'v3 Director for Regulat ry Programs
Enclosure:
"This correspondence formulates polic or expands, revises, or As stated interprets policy, involves matters p nding Commission deicision, contains items relating to the perfo nce of Commission duties and cc: R. Cucolo responsibilities, or involves items of high Commission interest." P. Chiefari Agreement States Distribution: EDO RF (G19990025) SECY (CRC-99-0029) DlR RF (9G025) DCD (SPOS) SDroggitis PDR (YES_f._ NO ) NY Dept. of Labor File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\NYDL99LT.DS2
- See previous oncurrence.
Ta receive a cop r of thee docuneent. Indicate in the bos: X7 = dry without attachment / enclosure T Copy with eftachment/e ure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP J l OSP:a LTd NMSS:D l DEDR l E$O l OCM l l NAME DSollenbM6er:kk PHLoh ms' ' CPaperiello FJMiraglia WDThavers l DATE 01/$/99 01/399 01/28/99
- 01/ /99 01% /99
/ /99 l OSP ILE CODE: SP-AG-20-3
1 PW \\ CD S I m m., .-.~,m u m.. 7 ,. amz c Eg@ STATE PROGRAMS OFFICETRACKING SYSTEM @u a M 3;[m a m>W.a,z,m,,., a, p.a a p_g -g , p ; ; u. w f u, y, w 7.n.y w; g...,, x * + r a y -g.r 3o gm;Gp;w ;,;;.a egwyMM;g y y %, FACTIVE' PROJEC
- g; n ye yy w w 44. 7. L ; ;:9 y}qe >, m g.
.p i f,L M W V V.y 4 W g &y p,j, 3,,ql$ j &, W,Fl W Q CfYN Q ? up B, ,e p 7m W e hff.f l v& A M: I ihy \\ ^ "_ Q, y., '..( ' %
- f QQs gyn-.Jfw
.o , op. e . N. s a R M) W._ Vp iDate:< l r Os T ,f 1/19/99 ,PsoleenD.[ A m h" M M^ 3 yl y;g g j g g,Q: g.E W $ L,t.~Z Qg g g. & g y;.5 y<.a 9 4.1gg cb W, ~ j9G025 j a% L O "3 g/$ h M@N ProjeclDeectlpRon: OPPOSES SEALED SOURCE AND DEVICE EVALUATION IN hO ', QIfQ $+ -44 6 h [ M, N;2h 11/30/98 FINAL IMPEP MPORT ON NY STATE DEPT OF LABOR gg (-j ] p, ;.gp . m,OGRAM n T': M
- ' p. ).
) PR y, J Q ik nM: * + ' ~ 1/19/=99h~mrmgnb,p Osiginal Date:;, l. ~=m--[- Projectl. cod: lSOLLENBERGER lh.i ) m.vmwn,v -- Q p & x x wlWP Cwe-J a Date:rl wh QDueDate: l &g ' ;, StarDale. i 1/28/99 A 1/28/99 h, { m %_ % M + % m % -.p y(Q 4% 16. -. u~;:.., ~ y< -.~.: m,1 -. q q.z.o 2ht .....w s, ". la,,s$0alus:. SIGNATURE FOR MIRAGUA. EDO AND COMMISSION ON p' * ~ '1 ..r J. s. 5a*
- ~
CONCURRENCE. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION TO REVIEW RESPONSE M',oc W t V!@.} ,:g %,n -{ ,W \\ - ' PRIOR TO DISPATCH -hM 7 9) , M %n m m v --~~~ ~ m -*m m#7Uy%m p.yx:7Mg 4.y w _Jh. '. <' n.mprp 7 ~;3 g Requester /OIRce: ' / W. 7,4,y-l ALDRICH/NYSTATE 1.~p g _f,p ' -_n... e. s w' t ..g z o. yb_t g., g - (H A f.; d, Q. 'v tt ap p gw r vy ,y-
- g. 3 +
L p, Xe y a r 0;f: .. ' -.%.,f,:.yo.Myf TT. pj.a p ,%a a '._,0.- n y .q,m
- 8. ';V'.J. 7. : V *'
>, y g n ' , %e. s' +. l ['s -, e 1 3-a, c ....3 w . m;,. g, -.y .c c... 3 g 'p 7IXtengl0A R**'_ bm> r;:, - n ....._, _ n n - e _ _ i I.p.. < } < Extension Dde( l __ _ j );)Q ", c; N, N.* N!p > @y]
- a. <..; acq b
.s ,a t p.g.1 g .I% ,-j 4,.-o / A ' 4 7 Sy w 4,4 g.g ,,.4-f' 5-l +.. PA W_: l a ?.. -^^ 3 3 - s I 'A- < - i-^ iT t * , a-k r s s ..['"",' ***f**$0"*W*"'.;. Y 'i t % M Y'N3 2 ^g' 1 9 ., g ; '
- Nf' N
's O T 44;s-i ,. nM,,y"sgly k Y' t 4. w g i r.- 7 i J> ,,s .,.. :j . m.w, W y.,- ( .y ' s%' ' ~:' y" ;a 9, f 19' - 7. ' in l y' - q m.e;w<, , ~. g 8 .e .f j ..y f.d.... & 'm%, 4 . 7'. .- ; f..; p.3 \\4& .\\ ^ gf,, c. a s !*, ~p.q, [ j*. Y( Q L,[ r r s ~~ .=..kA e, E ,r, f
- i.,,s j
38.$g y y* -
- , k 'sA f, t:' rl,
- [Q y
"'EL -[k I .) f - " *
- s lh['a.'4
, x q' J -7' 2*1 ,-l2 W., [Q t
- s e
l.' s ;i,ty " # ~-lC. s* 3., G;.y 2 Q yg 4 4 , ? a
- 7..,;,
u .m. , e-ct, s
- c. /:x 1
m -, ,a . ~.l; .. y m3 .e j ..a., f d pg t j, n se a 3 u_: e y ~i t L
- -x.r y
. 1 4 O l.)
yy 'YT~'7~ i ACTION EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROMt DUE: 01/28/99 EDO CONTROL: Gl9990025 DOC DT: 01/11/99 FINAL REPLY: 'Rito Aldrich NEW York State TO Chairman Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- PRI CRC NO:
Miraglir DESC i ROUTING: h OPPOSES SEALED SOURCE & DEVICE EVALUATION IN Travers 11/30/98 FINAL IMPEP. REPORT ON NY STATE DEPT OF Knapp LABOR PROGRAM Miraglia Norry Blaha Burns DATE 01/15/99 Paperiello,NMSS ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT: . SP Lohaus ~ECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: Add EDO and Commission on for concurrence. Chairman and Commission to review response prior to dispatch. gz C3 t.D T -o 5 IN s t
i OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-99-0029 LOGGING DATE: Jan 14 99 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR': 'RITA ALDRICH AFFILIATION: NEW YORK ADDRESSEE: CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE: Jan 11 99 FILE CODE:
SUBJECT:
OPPOSES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SEALED SOURCE & DEVICE (SS&D) EVALUATION REPORT WAS REVIEWED..... ACTION: Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN, COMRS, OIG SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK CONSTITUENT: NOTES: COMMISSION TO REVIEW RESPONSE PRIOR TO DISPATCH...OCM #16392 DATE DUE: Feb 1 99 SIGNATURE: DATE SIGNED: AFFILIATION: i i EDO --G19990025 J}}