ML20247N582
| ML20247N582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/19/1989 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Mary Walsh MARYLAND, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909260242 | |
| Download: ML20247N582 (5) | |
Text
7
[ } g< lh UN!TED STATES NUCLEAR R2GULATORY COMMISSION 9
E WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
,o
\\ '.'.'. * /
September 19, 1989
=
Martin W. Walsh, Jr., Secretery Maryland Department of the Environment 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, Maryland 21224
Dear ir. Walsh:
During the period February 13-17, 1989, we conducted our regular periodic review of the State's radiation control program. On February 17, Messrs. John McGrath and Stewart Ebneter held a closeout meeting with Deputy Secretary Andrews summarizing the finding of the review.
Subsequent to the review, an employee of Neutron. Products, Inc., a Maryland licensee, was found to be contaminated with cobalt-60 at the Ginne Nuclear Power Plant in New York.
In view of the implications of this cese for various aspects of Maryland's Agreement program, e.g., in emergency response, licensing, and inspection and enforcement, we pcstponed our final report on the evaluation of the State program until the State's actions in handling this incident could be factored into the over611 review. In additional meeting tc review the State's actions was held with Mr. Larry Ward, Mr. Roland Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, and his staff on August 9, 1989.
The inclusion of the State's radiation control program in the newly createc benartment of the Environment has, we believe, been a positive development for the program. The interest that ycu and Deputy Secretary Andrews have shown in radiation matters has been reassuring to us. The program has undergone a number of changes since our last review in Jar >uary 1987, but has managed to accomplish its basic mission regarcir.g protection of the public health and safety.
For example, despite the less of two ser.ior inspectors, the program's inspection backlog has been reduced to essentisily zero. The results cf our review, therefore, iriicate that the State's program for regulating agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety.
During our lest two reviewt
- r have commented on the need to revise the State's regulations regardine low-level radioactive waste, specifically the adoption of the waste c' ossification and manifest systems. A draft has been prepared which addresses these and other aspects of low-level waste disposal. Mr. Fletcher has indicated that he will provide a copy of this draft for our review.
In the meantime, however, we must defer a finding of compatibility until such time as these regulations become effective. Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I indicator.
We were pleased to note that the State has proposed fee legislation. We believe that fees can provide a significant, stable source of funding for a radiation control program and have encouraged all States to adopt sone sort of fee system.
If we can be of any assistance in moving this issue forward, plecse call on us. Budget is a Category II indicator.
8909260242 890919 5@
PLR STPRG ESGM
SEP I 91999 Martin W. Walsh, Jr.
2 V g Since the last review, the program has lost two senior inspectors, one for a higher paying,-but similar position in a State institution. The program has experienced some difficulty in recruiting persons with appropriate training and experience to fill these two positions. One position was filled by a transfer from the X-ray program, while the second was filled by an individual with no prior training or experience j
in radiation protection. The amount of training necessary to bring this individual up to the point where he can begin to contribute to the program's mission is significant. We believe that the State needs to j
l upgrade its salary structure in order to more effectively compete for i
personnel with qualifications consistent with the duties and responsibilities of these posittor,s. Staff Continuity is a Category II L
indicator.
Over the past few years, the tse of radioactive material in the State has increased significantly. There are now over 500 licenses in the State.
Statistical data used to manage the program is still being processed by hand. For an Agreement State program the size of Maryland's, we have found that computer capability is necessary to effectively manage the program.
The Center has a personal computer available to the staff, and we recommend that the staff explore ways of effectively utilizing this resource. Office Equipment and Support Services is a Category II indicator.
We were pleased to note that, ir. most cases, the Center was diligent in pursuing effective enforcement action when circumstances so required.
The State has taken a number of escalated enforcement actions including civil penalties in the period since cur last review; however, as noted during previous reviews, the Center has no written procedures which address the process by which escalated enforcement actions are taken. We believe that the documentation of these procedures would be of benefit to the program. Enforcement Procedures is a Category I indicator.
We noted an exception to the program's generally diligent pursuit of timely and effective enforcement action.
In June 1988, the State issued an order to Neutron Products, Inc, (NPI) requiring the licensee to dddress, among otner things, the deficiencies in monitoring personnel as they leave the limited access area (LAA). This action was the result of an incident in May 1988 in which an employee of NPI was found to be contaminated with cobalt-60 at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in New York.
Subsequent inspections at NPI in July-August 1988 and October-November 1988 revealed that adequate corrective action had not yet been achieved. This issue came to our attention again when, subsequent to our program review, we were notified by Ginna Reactor staff on February 24, 1989 that the same individual from NPI was found to have cobalt-60 contamination again at the Ginna site. Analysis of the l
contamination revealed the presence of cobalt-60 " hot particles," a form
)
of contamination representing a significantly higher potential for l
causing radiation injury.
1
Martin W. Walsh, Jr.
3 SEP 191999 Since the February 1989 event, we have worked very closely with the Center staff in addressing the NPI situation. The State issued an order on March 3, 1989 essentially closing down the licensee's operation. We believe the State took a prudent course of action and has taken a cautious approach in evaluating NPI's proposed corrective actions, including obtaining NRC technical assistance in evaluating the NPI program. Although some problems did arise, both on the part of the State and NRC, particularly in the area of communication, we believe overail the State has handled this difficult case in an admirable manner, and we look forward to working with the Center in addressing the issues that remain to be resolved prior to granting Neutron Products full license authority. to this letter contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. We are 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.
As we discussed, the Department needs to revise its regulations as soon as possible to conform them to natione.1 st6ndards for low. level radioactive waste.
I would appreciate receiving a plan including milestones for accomplishing this. We will continue to provide technical and other assistance within our resources to the State in support of its regulatory program.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to our staff during the review.
Sincerel,
-n b kf((
l CarJtonKa,erer, Director State, Loc 1 and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
Enclosure:
Distribution As stated SA RF JLubenau Dir RF VMiller JMcGrath SDroggitis.
TMartin Maryland File
- See previous concurrence i
l iAd d.
! )FC :RI:SA0
- Rl:DRA :kJ:RA
- SLITP
- SLITP:D
- GP
- fPA ___...
- .. f___
)
- ED l.....:..........._:________:............:______...:.___________:.
l4AME:JMcGrath:ms:TMartin:WRussell
- VMiller :CKammerer hw rtz:H r on
- JMTaylor
)
i 1 ATE :*8/29/89
- 8/30/89:*8/30/89
- 9/1/89.#9/ 1 /89
- 9/ 7 /89 :9/A /89
- 9/ N89 l
f
\\
((
- e.
' Martin W.; Walsh' Jr.
-4 SEP 191999:
t. ':
w cc w/ enclosure:
J. M. Taylor, Acting Executive Directur for Operations:
William'T. Russell, Regional Administrator, RI Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Mith (CRH), Maryland Department of the Environment
-NRC Public Document Room.
State Public Document Room.
bec: Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts.
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss
= _ _ - _ - _ _ _
l j
)
6 ENCLOSURE I APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEM 3T STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs"-
i were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987,-as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide. provides 29 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 two 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 one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for irrprovements 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 creas, 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.
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 consnent made.
If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant Category I comments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need for improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluatien, the State's response eppears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer j
such offering until the State's actions are exanined and their effectiveness confimed in a subsequent review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the infomation through follow-up correspondence or perform a special limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Commission will be informed and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
___________J