ML20204E646
| ML20204E646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1987 |
| From: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Wallace W NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703260042 | |
| Download: ML20204E646 (6) | |
Text
.
4'/
March 17, 1987 William T._ Wallace, M.D., M.P.H., Director Division of Public Health Services State Department of Health and Welfare Hazen Drive Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Dear Dr. Wallace:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. John McGrath, Region I State Agreements Officer held with you on December 12, 1986 following our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control program conducted during the period December 8-12, 1986.
Three of the last four reviews of the New Hampshire program plus one follow-up review resulted in withholding a finding of adequacy based in part on significant deficiencies in the licensing program. During our previous review, we were unable to offer a finding of adequacy and compatibility because of deficiencies existing in two program areas. One area was the Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, a Category I indicator.
We stated in our November 25, 1985 letter regarding that review that "The review of two broad licenses revealed a number of significant deficiencies which we feel the state should.
immediately address." During the present review, the broad license files were again reviewed and we found no change had been made to the licenses which would alter our previous assessment. We understand that your staff has discussed the shortcomings with the licensees involved, but revised supporting documentation has not been submitted by the licensees nor has the state initiated action on its own to amend the effected licenses (e.g. reissue two broad licenses as limited group licenses).
We continue to believe that notwithstanding the compliance history of any licensee, licenses must be based on applications and supporting documentation, the essential elements of which meet current regulatory guidance for the type and scope of program covered by the license.
Only then can there be an adequate basis for taking regulatory actions to protect health and safety when needed. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category I indicator, and because these significant deficiencies have not been adequately addressed, we are again unable to offer a finding of adequacy and compatibility. to this letter contains additional detail on this matter as well as other technical comments. We would appreciate your review of our comments and would like to know your specific plans to address them. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. We are also enclosing a second copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
8703260042 870317 0
PDR STPRG ESGNH v f 'g /
(
l
2 Please be assured that the NRC will continue to work with the State in any way we can to effectively deal with these matters.
Sincerely, UtIgTnal '31gned by
.Thomac E. l'urley Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: D. Tefft, NH G. W. Kerr, OSP NRC Public Document Room m
--.,.~
.g
m-s 3
. Distribution:
T. Murley J. Allan J. McGrath D. Nussbaumer SP01 t
k t.
Original letter handcarried to NH by J. Allan and J. McGrath on 3/17/87.
76 her C g4, Axerr ]
ian TMurley rat 2/10/87 2//0/87 2/g/87 2r3487 2/#7 l.
l L'
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 1.
LICENSING
" Technical Quality of Licensing Actions" is a Category I indicator. The following comment and recommendation is related to problems which we con-sider to be of major significance.
Comment During our 1985 review of the State's program, the review of selected licensing files revealed a number of significant deficiencies particularly regarding broad licenses.
The license applications in general lacked the procedures normally expected for broad scope licenses. We recommended at that time that the state require the affected licensees to submit a more thorough application in accordance with Regulatory Guide 10.5 and that NRC's " Standard Review Plan for Type A Licenses of Broad Scope" be used for the review. Of particular concern to us is the committee membership, functions, duties and responsibilities (including the inhouse review process) and the overall safety program organization and responsibilities (including training, survey program and audits). With regard to two small broad medical licenses it was recommended that the State reissue the licenses as limited group medical licenses.
During the most recent review it was noted that no substantive change has been made in these licenses.
We reviewed the two broad licenses issued to Dartmouth and accompanied an inspector during an inspection at Elliot Hospital. We noted during the inspection accompaniment that the State inspector did not include a review of those aspects of the licensed program that implements the special features required for a broad license.
This serious omission raises a question concerning the quality of the State's inspection effort for broad licences and underscores the need for upgrading the licenses themselves.
Recommendation Based on licenses reviewed during the meeting and discussions with your staff which indicated that similar problems may exist with other broad scope licenses, we recommend that the State's five broad scope licenses be reviewed in detail in accordance with NRC's " Standard Review Plan for Type A Licenses of Broad Scope" and Regulatory Guide 10.5.
A schedule should be established and adhered to for completing this work.
2.
COMPLIANCE
" Enforcement Procedures" is a Category I indicator.
The following comment and recommendation relates to an issue of minor significance.
Comment During the last review we noted that legislation had been introduced which would grant the program authority to issue civil penalties. We indicated at that time our support for this effort.
The legislation has since been enacted, however, the State has not prepared implementing regulations and procedures.
. ~
3 Recommendation We believe that civil penalty authority is an important element of an effective enforcement program and recommend that the State proceed with the development of implenienting regulations and procedures as soon as possible.
3.
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRA1 ION
" Quality of Emergency Plar ning" is a Category I indicator.
The following comment and recommendatior; relates to an issue of minor significance.
Comment During our last review, we recommend that the State's " Nuclear Accident and Radiological Incident Control Plan" be revised to reflect current organization and procedures. We were provided a copy of draft revisions and we furnished comments to the State, however, final action has not yet been taken.
Recommendation We recommend that the State complete the task of revising the " Nuclear Accident and Radiological Incident Control Plan".
4
s A_pplication of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," were published in the Federal Register on December 4,1981 as an NRC Policy Statement.
The Guide provides 30 Indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas. Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the Indicators into 2 categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If significant problems exist in several Category I indicator areas, then the need for in.provements may be critical.
Category II indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.
Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program areas, i.e. those that fall under Category I indicators.
Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in.. Category I indicators.
ItistheNRC'sintent[ontousethesecategoriesinthefollowing manner.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category _of each comment made.
If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
If at least one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority b,a s i s. When more than one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would request an immediate response, and may perform a follow-up review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement.
Category II comments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public.
The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
-