ML20248G878

Provides Summary of Annual Meeting W/Maryland Held on 980508.Purpose of Meeting Was to Review & Discuss Status of Maryland Agreement State Program

ML20248G878
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/28/1998
From:	Duane White NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Fletcher R MARYLAND, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9806050376
Download: ML20248G878 (5)

Text

- - _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ - _ -

M ka

! E. ' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 5 REGION 1 l

0 kl 475 ALLENDALE ROAD

% . . w ,/ KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 May 28,1998 Roland D. Fletcher Manager Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management Administration Radiological Health Program 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore,MD 21224

SUBJECT:

ANNUAL MEETING

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

This year's annual meeting with Maryland was held on May 8,1998. The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the status of Maryland's Agreement State program. The NRC was represented by Thomas O'Brien from the NRC's Office of State Programs and myself.

Specific topics and issues discussed at the meeting included the status of the Neutron Products license renewal hearing, Maryland's status with the adoption of regulations, and Nuclear Materials Events Database reporting.

I have completed and enclosed a summary of our meeting, which includes any specific actions l that will be taken as a result of the meeting. 1 If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately reflect the meeting discussion, or have any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at (610) 337-5042 or e-mail to ADW@NRC. GOV to discuss your comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely, mc*t__h1 Duncan White State Agreements Officer Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:

As stated i

l cc: R. Bores, RI T. O'Brien, OSP l

9806050376 980528 PDR STPRO ESOMD PDR

[ h[

I l

i R. Fletcher 2

1 Maryland Department of the Environment l

l Distnbubon DCD (SPO 1) l R, Blough, RI G. Pangbum, RI P. Lohaus, OSP L. Rakovan, OSP l

l i

l I

l DOCUMENT NAME: G:DNMSOOCWORKWISCLTR\LMARYLAN.DD To receive a copy of thle clocument,Indicato in #te boa: *C" - Copy w/o ottsch/enct *E* = Copy w/ sttach/enci *N* = No copy OFFICE DNMS/RL g lN DNMS/RI l l l NAME DWhite(3V TO'Brien %

DATE 05/$/98 05b398 05/ /98 05/ /98 i l

I OFFICIAL RECORD COPY I

l 1

i

, AGREEMENT STATE MEETING

SUMMARY

FOR MARYLAND l BATE OF MEETING: May 8,1998 l

ATTENDEES: R8Q STATE Duncan White, RI Roland Fletcher, Director Thomas O'Brien, CSP CarlTrump, Program Manager DISCUSSION:

A significant portion of the meeting discussed Maryland's actions on the 1996 IMPEP review findings. The proposed status for each of the suggestions and recommendations in Section 5.0 of the 1996 Maryland final IMPEP report is summarized below (numbers correspond to the those in the final IMPEP report). A copy of Section 5.0 of the IMPEP report is attached for reference.

1. Open: Definition not revised in LLRW regulations; this section of State code not under the control of Radiological Health Program (RHP).

2. Open: RHP has pursued closure of tnis issue with the licensee, but the closure of specific misadministration is difficult due to the length of time between misadministration and the follow up (nearly 10 years).

3. Closed: Revisions incorporated.

4. Closed: RHP management indicated that their use of available university and industry educational programs were limited.

5. Closed: RHP has been implementing a revised training and qualification program with the most recent hire to the RHP staff.

6. Closed: . Inspections completed.

7. Open: Although the RHP has added one inspector since the last review, RHP management is looking to add yet another position to work on regulations. RHP management indicted that MDE is 2 to 3 months behind in adapting rules. NRC staff indicated that MDE could impose regulations required for compatibility by license conditions or other legally binding requirements until the regulations are adopted into the state code.

8. Closed: RHP has received and implemented MARISSIM regulatory guide for license terminations.

9. Closed: Supervisory accompaniments are being performed as required.

10. Closed: See No. 5 above.

11. Closed: Tracking system implemented.

12. Open: RHP has received the Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED) code and assigned it to a staff member to input and maintain reportable events. RHP staff l

was not aware that NMED reporting was now required for compatibility. RHP was still providing information to NMED on a voluntary basis. NRC staff noted that RHP had not reported some events to NMED.

13. Closed: Information provided to NRC..

14. Open: Also see No. 7 above. The current status of RHP adoptions of regulations were discussed. RHP has not finalized its adoption of the decommissioning regulations (Supplement 3) and medical distribution (Supplement 4). The next NRC rules to be adopted to the state code will be radiography (Supplement 5) and various amendments to Parts 19,20, decommissioning and medical (Supplement 6). Both supplements are currently prepared in draft in RHP.

15. Open- See No.14 above, j l

l

l

16. Closed. RHP submitted Supplement 4 for NRC review.

17. Closed: Registration sheets have been reviewed i 18. Open- RHP has not yet adapted these requirements.

19. Ck> sed. RHP management indicated that there are currently 4 individuals qualified to independently evaluate SS&D evaluations. RHP is aware of the recent changes to the IMPEP evaluation criteria for SS&D programs requiring two independent reviews.

Besides the possible addition of a position to support regulation adoption (see No. 7 above),

RHP management indicated that they are looking into adding two section leader positions for the materials group. If approved, these positions would be filled by existing staff and would not

{

increase the overall staffing level of the materials program. RHP management stated that I effective January 26,1998, there was a 35% increase to the amount charged to licensees for their annual fees.

RHP management discussed a recent procedural change in the handling of enforcement cases in their Attomey General's office which has resulted in decisions being issued in 3 to 4 months.

These delays are not expected to last long term and actions should be tumed around in a more prompt manner once the new staff in the Attomey General's office develop boiler plate language appropriate for RHP enforcement cases.

As indicated above, the NRC staff discussed changes in NRC policy with regard to the evaluation of a state's SS&D program, NMED reporting, and contaminated sites formerly licensed by the AEC. RHP management expressed their disappointment that NRC is no longer providing funding for training courses.

RHP management ln' dicated that they have not performed a self-assessme.1 of their materials program, but they are tracking items such as licensing actions, inspections and number of -

reciprocity requests as part of the performance indicators required by MDE upper management.

NRC staff discussed the allegations referred to RHP since the last review and noted that all  !

were closed. NRC staff emphasized the importance of how allegations are handled and noted that the NRC will probably be changing its policy to handle performance and wrong doing issues involving State personal. RHP requested that NRC place greater emphasis that allegations be reported directly to the state for resolution instead of going through the NRC.

RHP management and staff discussed the status of the license renewal hearing, courtyard cover permits, and inspections at Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI). MDE and NPI have completed  ;

their arguments to the court regarding license renewal and are awaiting the decision of the judge. NPI has not received all permits from the county to start construction of the courtyard enclosure. In particular, NPI needs to obtain a waste water permit, but needs to resolves issues covered by a MOU they signed with the county in the early 1980's. Lastly, RHP continues to conduct quarterly inspections of NPl's facility. The most recently completed inspection included a detailed evaluation of the licensees' respiratory protection program. RHP provided NRC staff with copies of the courtyard cover agreement dated November 1997 and supporting correspondence.

l  !

The next iMPEP review is scheduled for fiscal year 1999 (October 1998 through September 1999).

l

i

. CONCt.USIONS: ,

I donclusion #1: Adoption of regulations required for compatibility is still 2 to 3 months l l behind.

Action #1: Continue to monitor Maryland's progress for adopting regulations and RHP's efforts to add a position in the program to support regulation adoption.

Conclusion #2: RHP is not reporting all materials events as required for compatibility.

Action #2: Continue to moriitor RHP's implementation of Handbook on Material Event Reporting in the Agreement States (SA-300).

Conclusion #3: Training of staff to include use of regional or local resources when available.

Action #3: Region I has provided an opportunity for RHP staff to attend NRC refresher training on financial assurance in September 1998 at the Region I offices.

. . l l

l t

i l

l i

l

_ _ _ - --- - - - --