ML20211D751
| ML20211D751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/17/1986 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Fort D NEW MEXICO, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610220262 | |
| Download: ML20211D751 (5) | |
Text
_
i 60T17 G86
~
t i
Denise D. Fort, Director Environmental Improvement Division Department of Health and Environment J
P. O. Box 968 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0968
Dear Ms. Fort:
This confirms the discussion Mr. R. S. Heyer held with Messrs. R. Holland, B. Garcia and D. Young on September 25, 1986, following our current review of the New Mexico radiation control program.
As a result of our review of the state's program and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the state of New Mexico, the staff believes that the New Mexico program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety. However, our review disclosed a significant problem in one program area relating to a Category I indicator,
" Status of Regulations." This matter was discus, sed during the meeting with i
members of your staff, indicated above. The last revision, in its entirety, j
to the radiation control regulations was accomplished in 1982. The radiation i
control program staff needs to revise the regulations and incorporate. items necessary for maintaining compatibility with the regulations of the NRC and l
other Agreement States. Due to the lack of up-to-date radiation control regulations we are unable to make a finding at this time that the New Mexico
. program is compatible with the Conunission's program for the regulation of i
similar materials. We would appreciate receiving a response concerning the Department's plans for updating the regulations, as well as a response to the comments and recommendations attached as Enclosure 1.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing the Agreement State program is attached as Enclosure 2.
Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for public review.
I 1
i b fy RIV:SGAS SGAS OSP EDd RSHeyer:jc RJDoe GWKerr Martin l
10/\\/86 10/(/86 10/J/86 10///86
'Og/86 8610220262 861017 PDR STPRG ESGNM 7
-, -. ~.,.. -. -. -....,.... -
i 1
Denise D. Fort Director 1 appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to R. S. Heyer during the review meeting.
Sincerely, Oridnal signed by, l' ant S. Check
,_3
- Robert D. Martin 1 Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls:
Richard Holland, Deputy Director Richard Young, Legal Counsel Benito Garcia, Health Program Manager G. Wayne Kerr, OSP State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room bec w/encls:
V. Stello, EDO R. J. Doda R. D. Martin G. F. Sanborn P. S. Check R. S. Heyer C. E. Wisner D. A. Nussbaumer, OSP R. L. Bangart J. O. Lubenau, O&P W. Fisher New Mexico File 4BBSv8P99 w *.
I I
r l
l l
i
TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE hTN MEXICO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS
.I.
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS Status of Regulations (Significant Category I Indicator)
Comment The New Mexico Radiation Control Regulations (NMRCR), at this time, are not compatible with those of the NRC. Unadopted reFulations relating to nine separate matters of compatibility were found to be beyond the 3-year period allowed for Agreement States to amend their regulations after being promulgated as effective regulations by the NRC.
Recommendation:
The radiation control program staff needs to revise the regulations and incorporate items necessary for maintaining compatibility. We urge the Division to provide appropriate management attention to revising the
' State's. radiation control regulations so that they are adopted as expeditiously as possible and become compatible with NRC's regulations.
/II.
PERSONNEL A.
Staffing Level (Category II Indicator)
Comment The New Mexico-radiation control program has 247 materials licenses in effect. The current staffing level for the materials licensing
- and compliance program is 1.85 person-years. This is equivalent to
.75 person-year'per 100 licenses. The.75 person-year effort per 100 licenses is well below the recommended guideline of 1.0 to 1.5 person-years per 100 licenses.
Recommendation It is recommended that management increase the overall staffing level and closely monitor.the current level and assure that the shortfall in staff does not adversely affect the radiation control program.
~-_
e 3.
Staf f Continuity (Catego'ry II Indicator) r Comment We found the turnover of technical staff within New Mexico's radiation control program amounted to five persons during the review period. Staff turnover for the previous review in 1985 was seven persons. We recognize that the loss of the five staff members was attributed primarily to the return of the uranium mill program back to the NRC in June of this year. However, low salaries appear to be a major contributor.
Recommendation Since this is the third review period in which significant staff turnover has been experienced by the New Mexico radiation control program and this is a repeat comment, we strongly recommend the Division monitor closely the reasons for this turnover and attempt to minimize any future turnover of technical staff wherever possible.
III. COMPLIANCE Inspection Reports (Category II Indicator)
Comment During the review of selected compliance files and associated inspection reports, it was identified that not all reports adequately and completely documented the results of the inspection. It was noted that in some cases, the reports did not include the following: a discussion of the current status of previous iter.s of noncompliance and detailed results of the inspector's independent physical measurements.
Recommendations It is recommended that all inspection reports, wheth-r partial, special,-
or complete, document the information inspected to clearly substantiate all findings identified. All previous items of noncompliance should be specifically addressed to determine appropriate resolution or whether further action may be required.
-. _. ~ _.
t i
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programa" 4
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 Str.te program is provided by categorizing the indicators into 2 categories.
?
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to.the i
State's ability to protect the public health and safety. If significant i problems exist in several Category I indicator areas, then the need for. '
improvements may be critical.
i j
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 j
indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category I indicators'.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following 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 basis. When more than one significant Category I comment is j
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 followup review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have develcped, 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 asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review, i
,,__.. _,,., ___,, -.,_...,_.,,_ _..__ __,,__,__,,,.,,,,.__ _ _ _,, _,, _ _ _ _ _, _