ML20217B477
| ML20217B477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/15/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Garcia B NEW MEXICO, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709250182 | |
| Download: ML20217B477 (8) | |
Text
_.
- l..
nog \\
UNITED STATES y-NUCLEAR REGULAYORY COMMISSION WASHHv0 ton. D.C. 300064001 September 15, 1997 Mr. Benito Garcia, Chief Bureau of Hazardous and Rauloactive Materials Water and Waste Management Division Department of Environment 2044 Galisteo Road P.O. Box 26110 Santa Fe, NM 87502
Dear Mr. Garcia:
At the time of the 1994 review, De New Mexico radiation protection regulations had last been amended on March 10,1989. ConsequenUy, the compatibility finding was withheld because the State had not met the three year tirr.e frame required for adopting the equivalent to nine Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations deemed matters of compatibility: (1) bankruptcy notification; (2) quarterly audit of the performance of radiographers; (3) welllogging requirements; (4) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP); certification of dosimetry processors; (5) decommissioning requirements; (6) emergency plans; (7) safety requirements for radiographic equipment; (8) 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent; and (9) notifications of incidents.
New Mexico's equivalent to the regulations listed above were part of a rulemaking package which was adopted on April 3,1995, and which became effective on May 3,1995, We have completed a review of these regulatiom, focusing on those provisions required for compatibility or for health and safety under the new adequacy and compatibility policy l
statement approved by the Commission by Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30,1997 (Enclosure 1 describes the new compatibility categories).
New Mexico's 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent regulations. vere reviewed by the Office of State Programs, and the results of this review were sent to New Mexico in a letter dated i
August 18,1997.
l Based on our review, we find the remaining eight rules to be compatible with equivalent NRC regulations. One regulation, bankruptcy notification (10 CFR 30.34(h)), is designated as compatibility category "D" under Office of State Programs Internal Procedure B.7, Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety identification for NRC Regulations and g
Other Program Elements, and thus this rule is currently not required for compatibility. The Office of State Programs is currently proposing a revision to the compatibility category of I
C B E L_this rule. Under the proposed revision to B.7, bankruptcy notification will be desi as "D/H&S" (Enclosure 1 describes the new compatibility categories). Agreement States will be requested to comment on this, and other, proposed revleions, f4BC 9 EU
H p H H IN!
6F'4 O 9709250182 9709s5 PDR STPRQ ESONH PDR
l Mr. Benito Garcia 2
'6EP 1 s 1997 The implementing procedures for the new adequacy and compatibility policy provide that Ag'oement States should adopt a rule not previously required for compatibility, and currently required under the new policy for either compatibility or health and safety reasons as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three years after the policy's effective date (i.e., the publication date of the final policy in the_ Federal Realster). Thus, New Mexico will have three years to adopt an equivalent to 30.34(h), if the proposed designation of D/H&S becomes final.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility criteria, or the NRC regulations used in tha review, please contact me at (301) 415 2326 or Lance Rakovan of my staff at (301) 416 2580, or e mail to LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely,
(
6f 45' O'l y
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Direc{br V
Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated
Mr. Benito G:rcia 2-
'6EP 15 1R The implemerning procedures for the new adequacy and compatibility policy provide that Agreement States should adopt a rule not previously required for compatibility, and currently required under the new policy for either compatibility or health and safety reasons as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three years af ter the policy's effective date ti.e., the publication date of the final policy in the Federal Reaister). Thus, New Mexico will have three years to adopt an equivalent to 30.34(h), if the proposed designation of D/H&S becomes final.
If you have any questions retjarding these comments, the compatibility criteria, or the NRC regulations used in the review, please contact me at (301) 415 2326 or Lance Rakovan of my staff at (301) 415 2589, or e mail to LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, L. ANG RT c) Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
DlR RF (7S195)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
KSchneider JHornor, RIV/WCFO JLynch, RIV New Mexico File Compatibility File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\LJR\\NMRULES.LJR
'See previous concurrence to..c.+.. c, or w. o.eum.nt, ina.c.i. in in. dos: c. copy without.ti.cnm.nt/.ncio.or. -s. cop, witiwt.. chm.nt'.nclosur.
'N' = No copy 7
OSP:Dh h-l NAME LJRakovan:gd:nb PLohaus FXCameron RLBangal't' '
DATE-08/27/97*
08/27/97" 09/10/97*
09//5/97 OSP FILE CODE: SF AG 19, SP-C-6
- _ _. ~ _
Benito Garcia 2-If you have any questions regarding these comments, the comp ibility criteria, or the NRC regulations used in the review, please contact me at (301) 415<'2326 or Lance Rakovan of my staff at (301) 415 2589, nr e mail to LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely,
/
Paul H. Loh6us, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
/
Enclosures:
[
As stated
/
j
/
l l
l l/
i Distribution:
DIR RF (7S195)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
KSchneider JHornor, RIV/WCFO JLynch, RIV N:w' Mexico File C:mpatibility File DOCUMENT NAME: _ G:\\NMRULh.LJR )N 'Q(e previous concurrence Se ta m.
,.e w. 4
- n. me
> m. wii c - copy witnouf en.chmenvencio.ur. t - copy with an. chm.nts ncio.ur.
N Nocopy OFFICE OSP
[E OSP:DD [
MOGC l
OSP:D NAME LJRakovan:gd:nbe PLohaus FXCameron RLBangart DATE 08/27/97'!
08/27/97' 09/gy97 09/ /97
/
OSP FILE CODE: SP AG 19, SP-C 6 l+
~..
Benito Garcia 2-l If you have any questions regarding these comm ts, the compatibility criteria, or the NRC regulations used in the review, please contact m at (301) 415 2326 or Lance Rakovan of my staff st (301) 415 2589, or e mail to LJR2@NR. GOV.
Since ely, Pa l H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Of ice of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated f
D]stribution:
DlR RF (7S195)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis F'DR (YES/)
KSchneider JHornor, RIV/WCFO JLynch, RIV N;w Mexico File Compatibility File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\NMRULES.LJR f 13, *.. e,.e im 6,.uen.ne. mee.. w th. i.: an N 4 y without in.cnn,.nv.ncio.. t. cany.4,n en. chm.nir.ncins,.
N - #4o copy OFFICE OSP lE O@(
OGC l
OSP:D l
NAME LJRakovan:gd:nb t-PLohb \\sT PHLohaus RLBangort DATE 08/11/97 08/7)/97 08/ /97 08/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP AG 19 SP-C 6
Ggmoetibility Cateaory and H&S Identification for NRC Reaulations Ke', to categories:
A=
Basic rediraion protection standard or related definitions, signs, labels or terms necessary for a common understanding of radiation protection principles. The State program element should be essentially identical tc, that of NRC.
B=
Program e!sment with significant direct transboundary implications. The Stete program element should be essentially identical to that of f
NRC.
C=
Program element, the essential objectives of which should be adopted by the State to avoid conflicts, duplications or gaps. The manner in 1
which the essen. si objectives are addressed
}
may be different than that used by NRC.
D=
Not required for purposes of compatibility.
7 NRC =
Not required for purposes of
,1 L
compatibility. These are NRC program element areas of regulation that cannot a
be relinquished to Agreement States pursuant to the AEA or provisions of Title 10 c, the Code of Federal Regulations.
The State should not adopt these program elements.
H&Sc Program elements identified as H&S are not required for purposes, of compatibility; however, they do have particular health and safety significance. The State should adopt the esseritial objectives of such program elements in order to maintain aa adequate program.
E ENCLOSURE 1 K
-i
.a
-EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
~~~~.......
1
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>
--_~o TASK'# - 7S195 DATE- 08/18/97 EEEEEEEEMI MAIL CTRL. - 1997 I^SE 8?AR{ED - 08/18/97
{ASg,,ggg - 08/22/97
{AS{,COM{ g((g -
/
/
TASK DESCRIPTION - REVIEW NEW MEXICO REGULATIONS FROM THE DRAFT IMPEP
..~~~~~........~
REPORT REQUESTING OFF. - OSP REQUESTER.- KXS WITS -
0 FYP - N l PROG.-LJR' PERSON -
STAFF LEAD - LJR PROG. AREA -
--~~~~....
PROJECT STATUS -
DUE DATE:
8/22/97 q.
PLANNED ACC.
-N 3
LEVEL CODE -
1 b
9 4
t I
/>ch j&yW" Q
I
,w New Mexico Draft Report 4p age 2 h
4h k areas to be addressed to maintain erformance by the State. A response will be requested from the State to c!! recommendat ons in the final report.
A ss i 2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS
'bjds The previous routine review concluded on August 12,1994; and the results were transmitted to Judith M. Espinosa, Secretary, New Mexico Environment Department, on February 7,1995. The review findings resulted in recommendations in two pro, gram indicators. The team's review of the current status of these recommendations is as tA follows:
U)
At the time of the 1994 review, the New Mexico radiation protectiort regulations had last been amended on March 10,1989. Compatibility was withheld because the State had failed to meet the three-year time frame required for adopting regulations equivalent to nine NRC regulations deemed matters of compatibility: (1) bankruptcy notification, (2) quarterly audit of the performance of radiographers, (3) well logging requirements, (4) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) certification of dosimetry processors, (5) decommissioning requirements, (6) emergency plans, (7) safety requirements for radiographic equipment, f5PTtrt*H' P~t-20 eWWt =;;2S", and (9) notifications of incidents.
Current Status: New Mexico's regulations equivalent to the nine NRC regulations listed above we's part of a package of regulations which were adopted on April 3,1995, and which became effective on May 3,1995.
After reviewing the drafts of these proposed regulations, in a letter dated Jar.uary 9,1995, the Office of State Programs (OSP) offered the State a tentative finding of compatibility pending NRC review of the final, published
- i
- :;n. Tt-e :;. c. :n c- ;.ine-d- ?_ gi:2:f :;iin e#et the equivalent NRC regulations. Pending review by NRC's Office of &neral Counsel (OGC), the team recommends that these regulations bg found goo 3,7333,7 compatible with NRC requirerr.ents. This recommendation is cigsed..DOV G3NNV'Id pro frsa e nte st f aintaining cons s enc
~~~ ~~ end compliance activities.
~~~~~~----
--~~~~
- V3HV *DOHd Ef'I - GV3'I ddVIS
- NOSE 3d Ef'I
- DOHd TechnicaLstaff members wrote proceduras forJicensing, inspectiorund----~~
N - dad 0
allegatihbIt6l low up.1 he pSEMdureM84GElf2Glbben shadBDwhh *af hiDNI1 Sand 3H l
members, however, creating program inconsistencJescotah are.dixtugdJrl------
d3dWI Idfatgtigglt3Htogd ShthrittF29fidH s)picipprPRIN apigrLgIqiosetoI1730 sac ysyi 4
Tt i
/ 3j0
.C@g@FQgNCE @)gg@S. j~~~jjQi 46/81/90 - bbbkh1h~5hh1 4661feoo e
I NRW54N ind of M 1
' Tecnnicai 51a11 ng_and Training ( p i Jcimic31 Oi ny of Licensing inspection rrogram, !
i 3tfaTify biWMp&eiMH@a/rtfilB1MsiMirMi toWido
- and d
Actions, (4) Technid t
Allegations.
---------- --~~ --~~~~~~-
W31SAS IN3W3DVNVW MSV1 3AI1GD3X3 3.1 Status of M.
E-
^ U - +~
i + - 3:uquency,
~
The team focused c 4m
+~
overdue inspections, initial inspection of new licenses, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to licensees. This evaluation is based on the New Mexico questionnaito responses relative to this indicator, data gathered independently from the State's licensing and S
b..
d p
w
+g New Mexico Draft Report ago 2 4g po 9 spi areas to be addressed to maintain performance by the State. A response will be requested from the State to all recommendations in the final report.
A ss $n 4 2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS U
b'M The previous routine review concluded on August 12,1994, and the results were transtnitted to Judith M. Espinosa, Secretary, New Mexico Environment Department, on February 7,1995. The review findings resulted in recommendations in two program indicators. The team's review of the current status of thece recommendations is as tA-follows:
j (1)
At the time of the 1994 review, the New Mexico radiation protection regulations haa last been amended on March 10,1989. Compatibility was withheld because the State had f ailed to meet the three-year timo frame required for adopting regulations equivalent to nine NRC regulations deemed matters of compatibility: (1) bankruptcy notification, (2) quarterly audit of the performance of radiographers, (3) well logging requirements, (4) National Voluntary Laboratory Accieditation Program (NVLAP) certification of dosimetry processors, (5) decommissioning requirements, (6) emergency j
plans, (7) safety requirements for radiographic equipment, (5fdtttitW Part? quiva!ent reg &tions, and (9) notifications of incidents.
Current Status: New Mexico's regulations equivalent to the nine NRC regulations listed above were part of a package of regulations which were adopted on April 3,1995, and which became effective on May 3,1995.
Af ter reviewing the drafts of these proposed regulations, in a letter dated January 9,1995, the Office of State Programs (OSP) offered the State a tenta?,6 findhg of compatibility pending NRC review of the final, published regulations. The review team evaluated the published regulations against the equivalent NRC regulations. Pending review by NRC's Office of General Counsel (OGC), the team recommends that these regulations be found compatible with NPC requirements. This recommendation is closed.
(2)
The 1994 review recommended that the State review and compile internal procedures for staff use in the interest of maintaining consistency in licensing and compliance activities.
Technical staff members wrote procedures for licensing, inspection and allegation follow up. The procedures have not been shared with all staff members, however, creating program inconsistencies which are discussed in Sections 3 and 4 of this report. This recommendation is closed.
3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Pegional and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials Ir. ;pection Program, (2) Technical Stafiing and Training, (3) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, (4) Technical Quality of Inspections, and (5) Response to incidents and Allegations.
3.1 Status of Materials inspection Program The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue inspections, initial inspection of new licenses, and timely dispatch of inspection fmdings to licensees. This evaluation in be 'ed 6n the New Mexico questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, data gethered indu -r' mtly from the State's licensing and 1
_ _ _