ML20155H334

Draft Rept, Impep Review of Maine Agreement State Program, 980915-18

ML20155H334
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/21/1998
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20155G585	List: ML20155G580 ML20155H334
References
NUDOCS 9811100083
Download: ML20155H334 (51)

Text

. . . .- .~ . .- . . ~ . . . - . - . ~ . . . . ..- ~. . . - . . . . . - . . . .

V INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF MAINE AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM September 15-18,1998 DRAFT REPORT .

d 4

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9811100083 981021 PDR STPRO ESGME PDR ,,

.. - . . - - - . - . . . . - . - - - - --._- - - - --.-.~

g

-4 Maine Draft Report Page1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Maine radiation control program. The review was conducted during the period September 15-18,1998 by a review team comprised of technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of Mississippi. Review team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was .

conducted in accordance with the " Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance

. Evaluation Program and Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the Federal Reaister on October 16,1997, and the November 25,1997, revised NRC Management ,

Directive 5.6, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period June 3,1995 to September 14,1998, were discusced with Maine management on September 18,1998.

[A paragraph on the results of the MRB meeting will be included here in the final report.)

The Maine Agreement State program is administered by the Radiation Control Program (RCP).

The RCP Manager reports directly to the Director, Division of Health Engineering located in the Bureau of Health. The RCP presently has a Program Manager and two Environmental Specialist lli (ES 111) positions assigned to radioactive materials under the Agreement. The Maine program regulates approximately 134 specific licenses authorizing agreement materials.

The review focused on the materials program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of Maine.

Organization charts for the Bureau of Health and the RCP are included as Appendix B.

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common performance indicators was sent to the State on June 29,1998. The State provided a response to the questionnaire on September 3,1998. A copy of the quectionnaire is included in j Appendix F of this report.

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of:. (1) examination of Maine's response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Maine statutec and regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the RCP licensing and Inspection data base; (4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field accompaniments of two Maine inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify issues. The review team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP criteria for each common and applicable non-common performance indicator and made a preliminary j assessment of the RCP's performance.

Section 2 below discusses the State's actions in response to recommendations made following the previous review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-common performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings, recommendations, and suggestions . Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate directly to program performance by the State. A response is requested from the State to all recommendations in the final report. Suggestions are comments that the review team believes could enhance the State's RCP. The State is requested to consider suggestions, but no response is requested.

1

-w--,. ,--+ -%.- --- - ww ..,, .- .-----4 -,-- , , . -c . -- -e * - * - - - w

V Maine D' aft Report Page 2 2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS At the ef'ective date of the Agreement, April 1,1992, Maine's program was adequate and compatitle. During the orientation visit conducted on August 7,1992, several weaknesses associated with licensing and inspection backlogs were identified by NRC. The first program review was conducted in April 1993 and the findings for adequacy and compatibility were withheld at that time. The State had performed only 6 inspections during the first year and had 25 overdue inspections. It was noted at that time that the staffing levels were below the expected. (Note, the State disagreed with NRC's findings because of the impact on the Maine program f rom the licensing workload transferred from the Region.) During the February 1994 follow-up review, the program was found adequate and compatible with only one inspection overdue e nd an additional staff member hired. During the second review, conducted in June 1995, the State was again found adequate and compatible.

During the previous routine review, which concluded on June 2,1995, six recommendations were made and the results transmitted to Lani Graham, Director, Department of Human Services, on March 21,1996. The team's review of the current status of these recommendations is as follows:

1. We recommend that:

A review of Maine licenses should be performed based upon the requirements of the emergency planning rule; The results of the review should be documented and provided to the NRC.

If the results of the review indicate that Maine has no licenses subject to the provisions of 11e emergency preparedness (EP) rule, adoption of the rule may be deferred until a license application subject to the provisions of the rule is received. When a license application subject to the EP rule is received, the provisions cf the rule should be incorporated through license condition and the State should take measures to adopt the EP requirements as a regulation.

Maine should take measures to adopt the other regulations which are a matter of compatibility for the RCP.

Current Status: Maine responded to the recommendation in a July 23,1996 letter to the NRC, signed by Philip Haines, Acting Director, Bureau of Health. The response indhated that the EP rule would be incorporated through license conditions until '

rulemaking could be enacted. A review of licensee programs identified that only one, Binax, Inc., met the possession limits specified in the EP rule, thus requiring an emergency plan. Binax elected to de crease their possession limits below the rule limits and thereby avoided the need for an emergency plan.

At this time, no Maine licenses have possession limits necessitating an emergency plan.

Rulomaking for the EP rule is targeted for March 1999. This regulation is included in those identified in Section 4.1.2 for completion. This recommendation is closed.

V Maine Draft Report .Page 3 i

.2. We recommend that the membership appointments to the technical advisory committee, with individuals who are recognized experts in the use of radioactive material in a wide spectrum of disciplines, be completed as soon as possible.

Current Status: Since the last review, appointments were made to the Maine Advisory Committee on Radiation representing the industrial, research, academic and medical license communities. The Committee advises the RCP on rulemakings, allegations and other radiation safety issues. This recommendation is closed.

3. We recommend that the RCP develop and implement a training plan for new staff members, which includes NRC core courses, or their equivalent; specialized training

, courses; and a schedule for implementation in order to maintain an adequate level of staff technicalcompetence.

I Current Status: d training program, with a qualification journal, was developed for new I

staff members which is comparable to NRC's inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 12d6.

The ES Ill has attended all necessary courses with the exception of the Teletherapy and Brachytherapy course and the Program Manager committed to assign qualification journals to new staff members. This recommendation is closed.

4. We recommend that the RCP change its inspection frequency for nuclear laundries f rom a priority 3 to a priority 2.

Current Status: The nuclear laundry inspection frequency was changed to priority 2, although Maine does not have any nuclear laundries. All Maine inspection frequencies are at least as frequent as NRC's. This recommendation is closed.

5. We recommend that field evaluations of inspectors be performed to assess l performance and assure consistent application of appropriate RCP rules and policies.

Current Status: Field evaluations of inspectors are performed by the Program Manager I at least annually. Since the Program Manager also performs inspections, the ES 111 inspector performs annual audits of the Program Manager, using the same criteria. This recommendation is closed, i

I 6. We recommend that the program develop consistent and clear regulatory language for compliance and enforcement letters. The regulatory language should include clearly defined terminology to describe findings and problem areas identified during inspections, such as the definitions of non-compliance; notice of violation; non cited violations; point of emphasis; and area of concern.

, Current Status: A review of inspection documentation identified that the program uses consistent regulatory language in letters to licensees. Similar to NRC, the terms

" violation" and "non-cited violation" are the preferred terms in use. This recommendation is closed.

l l

l 3

- - - - , . - . . - _ .-- _ , ._ . ., , _. . . _ _ - - ~ _ - _ ~ , - - -

. . . __- - . - . - . - . . _ . . - ~.- _ _ . - ~.- . - - - - -

V Maine Draft Report Page 4 3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials inspection Program; (2) Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to incidents and Allegations.

3.1 Status of Materials Insoection Proaram The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue inspections, initial inspection of new licensees, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to licensees. The review team's evaluation is based on Maine's questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, data gathered independently from the State's licensing and inspection data tracking system, the examination of completed inspection casework, and interviews with the staff.

The team's review of the State's inspection priorities showed that the State's inspection frequencies for the various types or groups of licenses are at least as frequent as similar license types or groups listed in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800. The State's inspection frequency for some licensees such as teletherapy, medical institution /no quality management program (QMP) required, medical private practice /no QMP required, and portable gauges are Inspected more frequently than required by NRC.

The staff uses Lotus Approach softwere for the tracking system. This allows them to project

, the next inspection due date and to sort inspection data by license type, code, name, priority, l and inspection dates. The tracking system also provides other important information such as licensee contact and telephone numbers. The system also allows them to maintain inspection history such as types and number of violations from previous inspections. Their system maintains the dates the notices of violations were issued, licensee responses received, and State's acknowledgment of the response. The system provides the capabilities needed to track inspection and compliance data.

All inspection data are entered in the tracking system by the ES Ill. He prints a list of licenses with inspections due in the next six months. Due to locations of some licensees, several inspections in an area might be done during a trip. After the inspection is completed, the ES lll updates the tracking system. The Program Manager monitors the tracking system to ensure inspections have been performed.

In their response to the questionnaire, Maine indicated that they had 12 licenses (2 core licenses) overdue by more than 25% of the NRC frequency, and stated that they would be i completed by September 4,1998. During the week of the review, the team verified that all overdue inspections (core and non-core) had been completed and all inspections were current.

The team looked at the State's experience with overdue inspections during the entire review ,

period from 1995 to 1998 and it was noted that several inspections were conducted later than  ;

- the inspection frequency policy. Of the 19 inspection files that were evaluated for timeliness by the team, five (all core licenses) had been inspected past the frequency. The overdue inspections included an Academic Type A Broad license inspected 18 months late (two year 4

i l

1 0 l J 4 Maine Draft Report Page5

, inspection frequency) and a Research and Development Type A Broad license inspected 13 j

months late (two year inspection frequency). Of the 134 licenses regulated by the Maine i program,35 are core licenses, as defined by IMC 2800. The review team recommends that the i

. State perform routine inspections at required frequencies. l i

, With respect to initial inspections of new licensees,13 new license files were evaluated by the  !

1 team. Interviews with the Program Manager and ES 111 indicated that frequent conversations are initiated with license applicants to inform them of RCP regulations and policies. New licenses are sometimes hand-delivered. The State's policy is to inspect all new licenses within six months of license issuance or receipt of radioactive material. Eight of the 13 new license ,

files evaluated were not inspected within the required inspection frequency, but performed from l 6 to 18 months past the six-month window. All new licenses issued since the start of the review 4

i period had been inspected with the exception of two licensees issued in the last six months. )

, Interviews with staff indicated that contacts are made with new licensees to determine if radioactive material has been received but these telephone conversations are not documented.

Therefore, the State believes some of the initial inspections which appeared to have late inspections were actually inspected within six months of the receipt of radioactive materials. j The review team recommends that initial inspections of licensees be performed within 6 months 1

of license issuance or within 6 months of the licensee's receipt of material and commencement l

, of operations, consistent with IMC 2800. j The timeliness of issuance of inspection findings was evaluated during the inspection file review. With one exception, inspection correspondence was sent to the licensee within 30 days after the Inspection. Licensee responses to inspection findings were received in a timely l manner. The Program Manager sends out the acknowledgment to the licensee response and i determines if more enforcement action is needed. it was noted during the review that civil penalties may be assessed if the licensee does not take appropriate corrective actions. During

! an interview with the Program Manager, it was determined that one licensee had to be called in l for an enforcement conference and they agreed to take corrective actions. No civil penalties

! were assessed during the review period.

in their response to the questionnaire, Maine reported that, from 1995 to 1998, they had inspected all reciprocity licensees (two) that performed source installations or exchanges as well as over 50% of industrial radiography licenses that had filed requests for reciprocity. The j team's evaluation of the reciprocity files verified that inspections had been performed. Only one

! Priority 2 licensee was granted reciprocity during the review period, and it was inspected by the RCP.

Although preference is given to the inspection of higher priority reciprocity licensees, approximately 10% of Priority 3-7 licensees that apply for reciprocity are also inspected.

1 Maine's Priority 3 licenses include portable gauges (Priority 5 in IMC 2800). The review team i found the State's frequency for Priority 3 licenses acceptable with this variation from IMC 1220.

Late inspection of core licenses (IMC 2800 Priority 1 to 3 and initials) resulted in inspection

backlogs at various times during the review period. File evaluations performed by the team identified 13 of 48 (27%) core licenses (35 Priority 1 to 3 and 13 new licenses) were inspected late. At the time of this review, however, no inspections were overdue, core or non-core. The l Program Manager is now placing a higher priority on initial inspections and other core licenses.

The recent hiring of another ES Ill will help with that goal. The delay of the initialinspections

~ _ , - . ._ _. -

. _ _ ._~_ _ _ ._ ._, m - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._ .__._ _ _. ___

. I 1

.y.

Maine Draft Report Page 6 4

did not result in any health and safety issues that would have been prevented by performing the initialinspections on time. Based on the lack of impact from the delay of the intial inspections, the recent effort to overcome the inspection backlog, and the team's observation of the State's inspection methodology during the accompaniments suggests that the Satisfactory with Recommendations for Improvement finding suits the Maine program better than an Unsatisfactory finding.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Maine's 1 I

performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials inspection Program, be found l 4

satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.

3.2 Technical Quality of Insoections The team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and interviewed l inspectors for 19 radioactive materials inspections conducted during the review period. Both the Program Manager and the ES Ill conduct inspections. The casework included both  ;

inspectors and covered inspections of various types including medical institution /QMP required, medical institution /no QMP required, academic Type A Broad, teletherapy, industrial radiography, nuclear pharmacy, manufacturing and distribution, mobile nuclear medicine, fixed gauges and portable gauges. Appendix C lists the inspection case work files reviewed for completeness and adequacy with case-specific comments.

)

4 Maine's inspection procedures are consistent with NRC procedures inspections are routinely unannounced. Announced inspections usually involved initial inspections, inspections at distant locations, or, rarely, to ensure the presence of knowledgeable licensee staff. The review team noted that of the casework for the 19 inspections evaluated, only one inspection was

- announced.

~

l Maine's enforcement procedures include routine and escalated enforcement mechanisms.

3 Routine enforcement examples include enforcement conferences, Notices of Violation, fol'ow-

up inspections and restrictive license conditions. Escalated enforcement includes civil penalties, temporary suspension of operations, temporary suspension of license, confiscation of radioactive material, and criminal penalty. An interview with the Program Manager revealed 4

that, during the review period, the RCP had only one escalated enforcement action, an enforcement meeting with a licensee which achieved the desired corrective actions by the licensee.

Based on casework, the review team noted that the routine inspections covered all aspects of the licensees' radiation safety programs. Some deficiencies were noted and are documented in l Appendix C. The team noted that inspections are performance-based and inspectors observed licensed operations and had operations demonstrated whenever possible. Team inspections i were performed when appropriate. I 1

3 Maine's inspection field notes are comparable to NRC's inspection Procedure 87100. The  !

. inspection field notes provide documentation of the scope of the licensees' program including )

l receipt, transfer, use and storage of material, leak tests, personnel monitoring, training,

,~,e,-e.- + , . , - - - - . - - - - - - . . , , - - - - - - -

Maine Draft Report Page 7 disposal of radioactive materials, inventory, surveys and wipes for contamination, posting, labeling, audits, interviews with workers, contacts, independent surveys by the inspector, previous violations and inspection findings. Field notes were developed to cover all the different types of inspections that are conducted by the State.

The review team noted that the field notes did not document the items discussed in the exit meeting. The inspection reports list the names of individuals interviewed and contacted during i

the inspection, however, the reports could be strengthened by including a summary of the discussion. The review team also noted that six inspection reports had no supervisory review of

, the inspection report. The review team suggests that the RCP management continue supervisory review of inspection reports.

i The license casework that was evaluated contained complete inspection findings and enforcement correspondence. Telephone conversations with licensees were documented on an agency form that was maintained in each license file folder. The files allowed the reviewer to see that inspectors had conducted the inspections, discussed inspection findings with the Program Manager, and followed up on enforcement action after the licensee response was received.

The inspection findings are issued by the Program Manager. Inspection findings are routinely sent to licensees within 30 days with licensee responses returned in a timely manner. The response is reviewed by the inspector and the Program Manager prior to the State issuing an acknowledgment letter. Agency letters to the licensee outlining inspection findings and enforcement actions are written in a formal form using appropriate style, detail and regulatory language. One of the findings from the previous program review was that inspection findings language was confusing due to the use of various terminology for violations and items of concern. This issue has been corrected.

As noted in the questionnaire, the State has available a variety of portable instruments for routine confirmatory surveys and use during incidents and emergency conditions. The instruments include high and low range GM detectors, micro-R meters, alpha detectors, ion chambers, rate meters, multi-channel analyzer, single channel analyzer, and sodium lodide detectors. The Inspectors have calibrated alarming ratemeters for use during industrial radiography inspections. They are also issued pocket dosimeters and TLDs. The instruments are calibrated on an annual basis by calibration facilities that use sources traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The instruments used during the inspector accompaniments with the review team member were operational and calibrated. The State uses the Bureau of Health's Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory to analyze wipes for contamination and for analysis of water and soil samples.

The ES Ill has been accompanied by the Program Manager annually during the review period.

i-The Program Manager has also been accompanied by the ES Ill during 1998. The Program Manager stated that annual inspector accompaniments will continue to be done using this approach to ensure inspection procedures are followed and to assess the inspector's ability to conduct inspections of specific types of licensees.

During the week of August 3,1998, a review team member performed accompaniments of the

. Program Manager and ES lil on separate inspections of licensed facilities (See Appendix C).

- The inspections included an academic institution and an industrial radiography licensee. During l

l V

Maine Draft Report Page 8 the accompaniments, inspectors demonstrated appropriate inspection skills and knowledge of regulations. The inspectors were well prepared and thorough in the review of licensee programs.~ Inspection techniques were observed to be performance oriented and the technical 1 performance of both inspectors was excellent. The inspections were adequate to assess I radiological health and safety at the licensed facilities.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Maine's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found l i

satisfactory. I 3.3 Technical Staffino and Trainina

\

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program staffing level and staff turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of )

the staff. To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, and interviewed RCP management and staff, and considered any possible workload backlogs.

At the time of the review, Maine's radioactive materials program was staffed by the Program

Manager and one full time ES 111. The other ES Ill staff position was filled after the review. In

' August 1997 the former Program Manager left the program and an ES lil was named Acting Manager, in July 1998, the acting Program Manager was named Program Manager. For a period of one year, the RCP was short staffed. As discussed in Section 3.1 above, the vacancy contributed to inspection tacklogs and late inspections during the review period. The lack of staffing has also affected the promulgation of regulations required for compatibility.

Rulemakings have been delayed and are considerably overdue, as described in Section 4.1.2

. below. The review team noted that minimal staff time was devoted to rulemaking efforts due to licensing and inspection needs. The State also identified this area as a weakness in the IMPEP questionnaire.

1

Additionally, the Low Level Waste Inspector position in the program has been vacant since May 1998. This staff position relates primarily to the decommissioning of the Maine Yankee reactor but provides support and depth to the radioactive materials program. The position is currently posted.

In October 1998, shortly after this review, the vacant ES Ill position was filled. The new hire has commenced the Program's qualification and training process.

The RCP has a training and qualification program in place for the staff which is taken directly from the NRC's IMC 1246, " Formal Qualification Programs in the Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Program Area." Both the Program Manager and ES Ill are well trained and are qualified from an education and experience standpoint. Both have Bachelor's degrees in the ,

sciences and the Program Manager is also a professional engineer. They have attended most l of the training courses prescribed by IMC 1246 and are very familiar with Maine regulations, policies and procedures. Neither individual has yet taken the Tsjetherapy and Brachytherapy course (H-313), but the ES Ill is enrolled in the March 1999 course. The new hire ES lli will be

, issued a qualification journal.

e.

r - , . _ _ . - _ _ . . _

.- ._,_____m

-. , , m _. _ . _.- __. . , . ._, _ . . _ . . _ - _ _ _

L l.

i

(

4 Maine Draft Report Page 9 During a 1997 rulemaking, the State raised licensee fees to cover anticipated travel and training costs. The ability to pay all training costs for NRC-sponsored courses allows priority

- acceptance and helps staff members maintain training levels required by IMC 1246.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Maine's performance with respect to the Indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensina Actions The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed the staff for 19 specific licenses. Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness, consistency, proper isotopes and quantities used, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. Licenses were evaluated for overall technical quality including accuracy,

appropriateness of the license, its conditions, and tie-down conditions. Casework was

! evaluated for timeliness, adherence to good health physics practices, reference to appropriate

! regulations, documentation of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other supporting documents, consideration of enforcement history on renewals, pre licensing visits,

. peer or supervisory review as indicated, and proper signature authority. The files were checked for retention of necessary documents and supporting data.

l The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions that had been completed in the review period. The cross-section sampling included the l following types: academic broad scope; industrial radiography; medical institutions; nuclear pharmacy; fixed and portable gauges; teletherapy; self-shielded irradiator; and manufacturing.

Licensing actions completed during the review period included 24 new licenses,35 renewals, and 151 amendments (including 15 terminations), for a total of 210 licensing actions. The review team noted that staff is currently reviewing the decommissioning results for the Philips 1 Elmet facility with regard to agreement material in Maine. A list of licenses evaluated with case-specific comments for license reviews may be found in Appendix D.

Types of licensing actions selected for review included two new licenses, eleven amendments to existing licenses, four license renewals, and two terminations. License reviews were generally well done and complete. The review team noted that some licenses included license conditions that were obsolete; however, the presence of these older license conditions did not compromise the safe use of licensed material. Also, the review team noted that one action included privacy information provided by the licensee in the docket file. This issue is discussed l in more detailin Section 3.5.

L The licensing process was discussed with the ES Ill, who is also the primary license reviewer, and with the Program Manager. All licensing actions receive supervisory review, and were signed by management. Deficiencies were addressed by correspondence utilizing appropriate regulatory language. The review team noted that RCP staff did not always document telephone conversations with the licensee that requested specific information in support of completing a licensing action.

l

. _ _ . _ _ ._ _._ _ _ _ _._. - . _ . ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

Maine Draft Report Page 10 The State uses detailed licensing checklists for renewals and new licenses. The review team noted that the program utilized an NRC checklist for industrial radiography license actions performed during the review period. In discussions with the primary license reviewer, the RCP j is planning to develop a Maine specific industrial radiography checklist because of the increase in the number of licensees.

The State utilizes a commercial datahse system for tracking licensing actions. The ES lil also maintains a written log of all licensing v:tions received and their status. Maine's goal is to

. complete actions on license amendments within 90 days. However, the RCP's reliance on one

. primary reviewer to handle all licensing actions (typically six to 10 per month) did result in some amendment actions taking more the t 99 days to complete. With one exception, the review team found that renewals were c- g 'teo 'vithin one year of receipt.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation critet. a. ' id review team recommends that Maine's 4

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

3.5 Resoonse to incidents and Alleaations in evaluating the effectiveness of the State's actions in responding to incidents, the review team examined the State's response to the questionnaire regarding this indicator, evaluated selected incidents reported for Maine in the ' Nuclear Material Events Database" (NMED) against those contained in the Maine files, and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for five materialincidents. The team also reviewed the State's response to four allegations including 4

one allegation referred to the State by NRC during the review period. A list of incident files

, examined along with case specific comments is contained in Appendix E.

The five incidents selected for review included abandoned material, procedural failure, contamination event, damage to equipment and a transportation event.

When notification of an incident or an a!!egation is received, the Program Manager and staff normally meet to discuss the Initial response and the need for an on site investigation. The safety significance of the incident / allegation is evaluated to determine the type of response that Maine will take. The small size of the Maine program allows for the prompt dissemination of

Information regarding the event to all personnelin the program. Radiologicat incidents can be reported 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day through the Department's emergency line. The RCP has general written guidance for handling both incidents and allegations in their inspection procedures.

The review team found that the State's responses to incidents and allegations were within the i performance criteria. Initial responses were prompt and well coordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with the health and safety significance, inspectors were dispatched for on-site investigations when appropriate and the State took suitable action.

The review team found the documentation of the incidents to be inconsistent. Although three of the five incidents evaluated had documentation in the incident files, the other two incidents had not been documented nor received supervisory review. The review team also found that the documentation of the incidents involving specific licensees were not placed in the license files.

Finally, the review team noted that incidents were not followed up at the next inspection or in a timely fashion. The review team recommends that the program consistently document and

.~ -

4 Maine Draft Report Page 11 Finally, the review team noted that incidents were not followed up at the next inspection or in a timely fashion. The review team recommends that the program consistently document and perform appropriate follow-up of allincidents.

The review team concluded, after a review of the incidents and discussions with staff, that none of the incidents required reporting to the NRC Operations Center. The Program Manager was familiar with the guidance contained in the " Handbook on Nuclear Event Reporting in the Agreement States " The review team queried the incident information reported to the NMED system for Maine for the review period which identified three events. All three incidents reported to NMED corresponded to events related to activities at Maine Yankee Nuclear Generating Station.

During the review period, there was one allegation referred to the State by the NRC and three allegations reported directly to the program. The review of the State's allegation file indicates that the State took prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised. The review team noted that all documentation related to the investigation of allegations was maintained in a separate file with no cross reference to the license file. Although the review team recognized the program's decision to keep any documentation related to the allegation separated, the review team noted that some privacy information was inadvertently placed in the license files as part of licensing action (see Section 3.4). The review team recommends that the program's procedures be reviewed and updated for handling allegations and other privacy information to reflect Department of Health policy or State laws specific to Maine.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Maine's performance with respect to the indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, be found satisfactory.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement State programs: (1) Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility; (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. Maine's Agreement does not include a low-level waste disposal program or a uranium recovery program, so only the first two non common performance indicators were applicable to this review.

4.1 Leaislation and Proaram Elements Reauired for Comoatibility 4.1.1 Leaislation Along with their response to the questionnaire, the State provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies of legislation that affects the RCP. The currently effective statutory authority for the RCP is contained in the Maine Radiation Protection Statutes in 22 MRSA 6 661-690. The Radiation Control Program is de_signated as the State's radiation control agency.

The review team noted that no legislation affecting the RCP was passed during the review period.

d t

Maine Draft Report Page 12 4.1.2 Prooram Elements Reauired for Comoatibility The Maine Regulations for Control of Radiation, found in Maine Administrative Rules 10144A CMR 220, apply to all lonizing radiation, whethar emitted from radionuclides or devices. Maine requires a license for possession and use of all radioactive materialincluding naturally  !

occurring materials, such as radium, and accelerator produced radionuclides.

The review team examined the State's administrative rulemaking process and found that the ,

process takes approximately four months after filing the draft administrative rule with the Secretary of State. Prior to filing with the Secretary of State, the draft administrative rule is  ;

reviewed by management and the Attorney General's office as well as the Maine Advisory '

Committee on Radiation. When an acceptable draft proposed revision to a rule has been prepared, it is sent to the Secretary of State, all potentially impacted licensees and registrants, e and the NRC, for comment. The Secretary of State announces a public comment / hearing l period for the proposed revision to the rule. After responding to comments, the RCP forwards the proposed revision to the rule with the addressed comments to the Commissioner for final l

approval. Comments are considered and incorporated as appropriate before the regulations i are finalized. The Commissioner and the Attorney General sign final regulations. The State has the authority to issue legally binding requirements (e.g., license conditions) in lieu of regulations until compatible regulations become effective.

The team evaluated Maine's responses to the questionnaire and reviewed the status of  ;

regulations required to be adopted by the State during the review period. No compatibility-  !

related regulations were adopted by the State during the review period. The review team noted that Maine prepared initial drafts for several of the NRC regulation amendments required to be adopted, however, they have not been finalized and, therefore, they have not been adopted. i As stated in Section 3.3, the State identified this area as a weakness. The diminished staffing in the program has limited the time devoted to rulemaking issues, in favor of the inspection and l licensing programs.

1 The State has not yet adopted the following regulations, but intends to address them in  !

rulemakings or by adopting alterrate generic legally binding requirements: l

• " Emergency Planning Rule," 10 CFR Parts 30,40 and 70 (54 FR 14051) that became effective on April 7,1990. Note, at this time, no Maine licenses have possession limits necessitating an emergency plan, e " Notification of incidents," 10 CFR Parts 20,30,31,34,39,40 and 70 (56 FR 64980) that became effective on October 15,1991.

1 e " Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators," 10 CFR Part 36 amendment (58 FR 7715) that became effective July 1,1993. At this time, Maine has j no poolirradiators. ,

1 e " Decommissioning Recordkeeping, and License Termination: Documentation Additions," 10 CFR Parts 30,40,70, and 72 amendments (58 FR 39628) that became l effective on October 25,1993. j l

l 9

1

< e Maine Draft Report Page 13 e "Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial Mechanism," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 i

l amendments (59 FR 1618) that became effective January 28,1994.

e " Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 amendments (59 FR 36026) that became effective August 15,1994. I 1

e " Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Distribution, and Use of Byproduct Material for l 1

Medical Use," 10 CFR Parts 30,32, and 35 amendments (59 FR 61767 and 65243) that j became effective January 1,1995.

e " Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment," 10 2

CFR Part 20 amendment (60 FR 7900) that became effective March 13,1995.

I e " Low Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 amendments (60 FR 15649 and 25983) that became effective March 1,1998. The

Agreement States were expected to promulgate their regulations no later than March 1, 1998 so that NRC and the State would require this national system to be effective at the same time. At this time, Maine licensees are implementing the requirements of these regulations through transfer of material requirements to the low-level waste disposal facilities.

4 e " Performance Requirements for Radiography Equipment," 10 CFR Part 34 amendments (60 FR 28323) that became effective June 30,1995.

e ' Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria," 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 amendments (60 FR 36038) that became effective August 14,1995.

e " Medical Administration of Radiation and Radioactive Materials," 10 CFR Parts 20 and 35 amendments (60 FR 48623) that became effective October 20,1995, e ' Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 amendments (60 FR 38235) that became effective November 24,1995.

. e " Compatibility with the international Atomic Energy Agency," 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1,1996.

.* " Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Record Keeping Requi.ements,"

10 CFR Parts 20,30,40,61,70 amendments (61 FR 24669) that became effective June 17,1996.

e " Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act," 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65119) that became effective January 9,1997.

e " Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Within an Agreement State," 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became effective February 27,1997.

e " Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material," 10 CFR Parts 20 and 35 amendments (62 FR 4120) that became effective May 29,1997.

4 Maine Draft Report Page 14 e " Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety - Requirements for Industrial Radiography Operations," 10 CFR Parts 30,34,71,150 amendments (62 FR 28947) that became effective June 27,1997.

e " Radiological Criteria for License Termination," 10 CFR Parts 20,30,40,70 amendments (62 FR 39057) that became effective August 20,1997.

e " Exempt Distribution of a Radioactive Drug Containing One Microcurie of Carbon 14 Urea," 10 CFR Part 30 amendment (62 FR 63634) that became effective January 2, 1998.

e " Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons," 10 CFR Parts 30,40,61,70,150 amendments (63 FR 1890 and 13773) that became effective February 12,1998.

The State indicated they anticipate adoption of the overdue regulations and the regulations which require adoption through 2000, by March 1999. A recommendation that Maine adopt compatible regulations within the 3 year time frame was made during the 1995 review. The review team recommends that the State expedite promulgation of the compatibility-related regulations.

It is noted that Management Directive 5.9, Handbook, Part V, (1)(C)(Ill) provides that the above regu'ations should be adopted by the State as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3 years after the September 3,1997 effective date of the Commission Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility, i.e., September 3,2000.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Maine's performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, be found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.

4.2 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Proaram At the time of the review, Maine had no sealed source or device manufacturers nor were any applicants anticipated in the near future. The State, however, does not wish to relinquish the authority to regulate SS&D manufacturers in the future. The State committed to have a program in place prior to performing evaluations. Accordingly, the review team did not evaluate this indicator.

5.0

SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found Maine's performance to be satisfactory for the indicators, Technical Quality of Inspections, Technical Staffing and Training, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and Response to Incidents and Allegations. The review team found Maine's performance to be satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for the indicators, Status of Materials inspection Program, and Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility. Accordingly, the review team recommends that the Management Review Board find the Maine Agreement State Program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program.

Maine Draft Report Page 15 Below is a summary list of recommendations and suggestions, as mentioned in earlier se.

of the report, for implementation and evaluation, as appropriate, by the State.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The review team recommends that the State perform routine inspections at required frequencies. (Section 3.1).

2. The review team recommends that initial inspections of licensees be performed within 6 months of license issuance or within 6 months of the licensee's receipt of material and commencement of operations, consistent with IMC 2800. (Section 3.1).

3. The review team recommends that the program consistently document and perform appropriate follow-up of allincidents. (Section 3.5).

4. The review team recommends that the program's procedures be reviewed and updated for handling allegations and other privacy information to reflect Department of Health policy or State laws specific to MJ.!ne. (Section 3.5).

5. The review team recommends that the State expedite promulgation of the compatibility-related regulations. (Section 4.1.2).

SUGGESTIONS:

1. The review team suggests that the RCP management continue supervisory review of inspection reports. (Section 3.2).

._, _ .. _ .~. . . . . . . - - . . _ . .. . __ - - - -

4 i

LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS t

Appendix A iMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Maine Organization Charts Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews Appendix D License Casework Reviews

' Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews Appendix F Maine's Questionnaire Response

o APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Area of Responsibility James Lynch, Region lli Team Leader Technical Staffing and Training Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility B. J. Smith, Mississippi Status of Materials inspection Program l J Technical Quality of Inspections Duncan White, Region i Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Response to incidents and Allegations 4

a +a.a A. 4 ra . - #.- c .J..4-4-. - +A _

-,m-g4 ,-4. , , + J. ----a.>+ 6a.a 4-=A-~a.aa+ = . - A .*--- _ _. *iua_e..--- a - d-* 4 -,a .r-.

e W

l l

I i

e l APPENDIX B STATE OF MAINE BUREAU OF HEALTH DIVISION OF HEALTH ENGINEERING RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM ORGANIZATION CHARTS

l Dora A. Mills,MD, MPH

' Dimur Bureauof Heshh i

Philip W Haines l NMrren Bartlett I

gg Daars Buresuof Heshh Office of

_______.u Heahh Data and Program Management

- " ' ' - - - ~ - - -

-Endronmental Toxicology

-V1talRecents

--SchoolHesNN infrastructure

-Surwy Operatons

-Data and Research

-ONm of Pdmary Health Care

-Maine ONce of RuralHealth I I I I ,

Jackk r GoughToppan i RandySchwartz l Division of WHeahh 2 Deanr l

Da,uur W nd Partnership for Disease Control i

EnvironmentalTesting a Tobacco-Free Dimur(W.ar)

Hea! .~% Family th Laboratory  ; M1rne

-Chemistry -PlumNng Conkel -MWSTD Program CNNcalMcrobiology -RaddogicalHealth -Tubercriosis Conkel

-Ea6ng andLodging '

-Endronmentat , Program

-CGmcelCerttnce6on -Drir:ktng Water l l -Rensgee HeaNh .

-Orpanics Com" ItY i Famay . ,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,

-Inorgenics, Nutrients, Heshh  ; Heahh _gy _ 4,-Progam McroNofogy Agents Programs 1 Programs -Immunincon Program l i

-EPSDT

._____..._,__: w- c- ~ - .-~. - -Immpact

-CancerPrevention Urd - -Healthy Famlies Program

-Breast and Cerdcol -Public HeaNh Nursmg '

HeaRh Program -Women and ChMen's

-Communny Henkt Preventive Hean L

. Chronic Disease Servnces Program Prevention Und -Lead P6isonmg

}.$// Ital / Of $~$Crillb

. -OralHearth Prog am Pnmnten Program

-Diabetes ControlProfoct -Coordne,ted Org. azzig,atioita/ Chai./ _,,,,,,, g, eve,,,. Se,v,c,, o, Care and Convo! Program ChHen with Special

. -Teen and Young Addit Needs Heakh Program -Genetics Pmgram

-CancerRegrstry -WIC Progrdrn

--OccupationalHeskh -State System ,

Program C:.,-:e,, it insiative ,

t

--Nutrition Program l

. s/98

RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM, DMSION OF HEALTH ENGINEERING BUREAU OF HEALTH

, Line List and Funding Source 5/11/98 Clough Toppen Dutctor Dar DrMt:, 4 324'221.UP .

I +'

I >

Jay Hyland Wgr, wh Control Patrrk Dostac 5N51 San Engr In State Nuclear Inspector 324761, U UD-I493. D Landa Flassgesellac X-ray Dale Randall A W 5N51

• - Eng. Tech av - Nuclear Engr 5pec JZ-1906, D 00-2554 D Koger Cumer X-ray 1 - Eng Tech IV  ;

r UD-1914. D Vacant Maseraals Lacenssag

- Envaren Spec HI UU-IE36 D ,

Shawit Seeley Materials Lacensmg

- Envar. Spec IU 00-Z296 D Vacant IAw level wasIc i I

- Asst Engr ,

w 2333.D Robert 5tswen mason C--

- Envuon Spec IH

@l9UI. t Onye MaallenNon-lonizang

- ClerIt Typast HI UD-1949, F i

India Kaesow

- Clerk Typest HI N Z336,D i ~ ~ ~ "

__. . .. __ ,- . - _ . , _ _ _ . . . ~ . _ . _ _ . - _ . _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ - _

l l

APPENDIX C H INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS  !

NOTE: ALL INSPECTIONS LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR l COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM.

File No.: 1 Licensee: BathironWorks License No.: 23209 Location: . Bath, ME .

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1

. lnspection Date: 8/24/98 Inspector: SS Comments: i a) Transportation requirements, such as blocking / bracing package, placarding vehicle were not verified:

b) Inspection 3 months overdue.

File No.: 2 Licensee : Elite Inspection Service License No.: 05703 Location: Portland, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced

. License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1

{ inspection Date: 9/3/97 Inspector: SS Comments:

a) Initial inspection 11 months overdue.-

b) Licensee did not take appropriate corrective action. Regulations require daily checks of visible signals / audible alarms in exposure room. Licensee stated they would check quarterly.

File No.: 3 Licensee: Quality Assurance Labs License No.: 05139 Location: South Portland, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced I

. License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 8/6/98 Inspector: JH l Comment:

a) No supervisory review of inspection report at time of review.

File No.: 4 Licensee: Aroostook Medical Center License No.: 03803-01 Location: Presque Isle, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced l License Type: Teletherapy Priority: 1 '

Inspection Date: 6/11/98 Inspectors: SS/JH File No.: 5 Licensee: Aroostook Medical Center License No.: 03803-02 l Location: Presque Isle, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced {

License Type: Medical - Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 6/11/98 Inspector: SS Comment:

a) Inspection letter sent 3 months after inspection was completed. '

l

. - . - - . , . . . - . - ~ - - . - . , - . _ ..- -.

l

- c ,,

_ Maine Draft Report Page C.2

, inspection Fi!e Reviews

' File No.: 6 Licensee:.Universityof Maine License No.: 19827 j- ' Location: Orono, ME . Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced 2-License Type: Academic Type A Broad = Priority: 2 4

' Inspection Date: 8/20/98 Inspector: SS Comments:

i' 4 '

a) Inspection 18 months overdue.

b). No supervisory review of inspection report.

File No.: 7 .

Licensee: Pharm-Corp of Maine License No.: 01713 01 Location: Augusta, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced a License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Priority: 1

Inspection Date

9/14/98 Inspector: SS.

1 '

. Comment: J

a) ,

-No supervisory review of inspection report.

1 File No.: 8 Licensee: Jackson Labs License No.: 09507-01 l' Location: Bar Harbor, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced

License Type

R&D,-Type A Broad Priority: 2 l Inspection Date: 3/18/98 ' Inspector: SS Comments:

a)' Licensee was previously cited for not doing contamination surveys. Inspector should '

l have checked for contamination in labs using wipes. .l b)- Inspection 13 months overdue. l l

c File No.: 9 Licensee: Diamed,Inc. License No.: 05349 L- Location: South Windham, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Manufacturing & Distribution Other Priority: 2 l inspection Date: 9/19/97 Inspector: SS Comment:

~ a) . Contamination wipes should have been taken by inspector to verify surveys were 1 - performed.

2 File No.: 10 -

Licensee: Eastern Maine Medical Center License No.: 19301-01 Location: Bangor, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Medical /QMP required Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 9/8/98 Inspector: SS i

! Comments:

Inspection 3 months overdue.

a)

, b) Dosimetry records not reviewed.

c) Special inspection performed in 2/96 in response to brachytherapy allegation.

- .,e-

s ,

i l

Maine Draft Report Page C 3

- . Inspection File Reviews ' '

- File No.: 11

- Licensee: St. Mary's Regional Hospital License No.: 01709 - i Location: Lewiston, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced  ;

. License Type: Medical /QMP required Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 5/11/98 Inspector: SS Comment:

, a) . No supervisory review of inspection report.

- File No.: 12 Licensee:' St. Joseph's Hospital .

License No.: 19705 Location: Bangor, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced l License Type: Medical, QMP required Priority: 3 inspection Date: 9/11/98 Inspector: SS

- Cominents:

a)- No supervisory review cf inspection report.

b) Licensee operations not evaluated, records review only.

File No.: 13 Licensee:" Houlton Regional Hospital License No.:L03409 Location: Houlton, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Medical /QMP required Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 6/11/98 Inspector: .SS File No.: 14 Licensee: Northern Diagnostic Labs .

License No.: 05615-02'

. Location: Scarborough, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced

~ License Type: Self Shielded Irradiator Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 9/2/98 inspector: SS File No.:115-Licensee: S.W. Cole Engineering Licence No.: 19709

- Location: Bangor, ME inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 6/5/97 Inspector: JH Comment:

a) Enforcement letter sent about revoking license if response was not sent in to Notice of Violation. Ucensee sent response in immediately.

File No.': 16 Licensee: James River Corporation License No.: 19521 Location: Old Town, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Fixed Gauge - Priority: 3

-Inspection Date: .1/4/96 Inspector: SS

- --- s- e" + ,,w-- aa m + v- y.,,-t---,.yw yy.--- ,,1--.--- +y , .rg.,3 --

y-- m y p-y* y. s. ,.--4 =%y.+ , .,,.---19er y- ,,-

9

Maine Draft Report Page C.4 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 17 Licensee: Maine Cardiology License No.: 05627 Location:- Portland, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Medical Private Clinic Priority: 3

. inspection Date: 1/31/96 Inspector: SS File No.: 18 l

Licensee: Inland Hospital License No.: 11921

(- Location: Waterville, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced L License Type: Medical /QMP required '

Priority: 3 L ' Inspection Date: 1/16/97 Inspector: JH L

File No.: 19 Licensee: Maine DOT - License No.: 19603 Location: Bangor, ME Inspecthn Type: Special, Unannounced l License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 7/14/98 Inspector: SS l - Comment:

I a) State has done 2 field inspections after an inspection in 10/96 discovered numerous L violations. Enforcement meeting held with licensee in 11/96 and licensee agreed to L - correct violations. No other escalated enforcement action required, inspectors also did unannounced field inspections in 8/97 and 7/98. No violations were cited during last 2 inspections.

NEW LICENSES EVALUATED FOR ISSUE AND INITIAL INSPECTION DATE l File No.: 1

-Licensee: Mobile Spect Imaging, LLC ^ License No.: 05701 l Location: Portland, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced i

License Type: Mobile Nuclear Medicine Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 4/11/97 Inspector: SS L- Comments:

- a) initial inspection not pedormed in 6 month frequency, license issued 8/9/95.

b) Inspector should verify requirements for mobile nuclear medicine are fulfilled as required by Section G of the regulations.

File No.: 2 Licensee: Weavexx License No.: 25901 Location: Waterville, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Announced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 6/12/97 Inspector: JH i-Comments:

a)- Initial inspection not performed in 6 month frequency, license issued 3/1/96.

b) No supervisory review of inspection report.

l I

l

~ - - - +y ,.,.,,_..,# ,-m , , , , - . , -, , , , , _-.- , - - . . - ,, ,, - __ y c__m,,, ,-,,w .y. , . - .,,.--m,,_-,,-v.r ,

4 I Maine Draft Report Page C.5 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 3 Licensee: CV Diagnostic Services Ucense No.: 11203

Location

Waterville, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced License Type: Medical Private Practice Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 9/7/98 Inspector: SS

' Comment:

a) Initial inspection not performed in 6 month frequency, license issued 9/11/97 File No.: 4 Licensee: M&H Logging & Constructio'n Ucense No.: 07401 4

Location: Rangeley, ME inspection Type: Initial, Announced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspect;on Date: 6/30/98 inspector: SS Comment:

0) Initial inspection not performed in 6 month frequency, license issued 6/19/96. l 1

Frie No.: 5 Licen-see: R.W. Gillespie License No.: 31703 Location: Saco, ME inspection Type; Initial, Unannounced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 12/28/95 Inspector: JH File No.: 6 Licensee: Marriners,Inc. License No.: 13601 Location: Rockport, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 6/10/96 Inspector: SS Comment:

a) initial inspection not performed in 6 month frequency, license issued 6/20/95.

File No.: 7 Licensen: J.T. Langille,Inc. License No.: 03501 Location: Presque Isle, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced License Type: Portable Gauge Pnority: 3 Inspection Date: 1/22/97 Inspector: SS File No.: 8 Licensee: Dayton Sand & Gravel License No.: 31303 Location: Hollis Center, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 1/14/98 Inspector: SS Comment:  ;

a) Initial inspection not performed in 6 month frequeNy, license issued 10/25/96.

l

1 Maine Draft Report Page C.6 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 9 Licensee: GZA GeoEnvironmental License No.: 05403 Location: Portland, ME inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced

- License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 8/5/97 Inspector: SS File No.: 10 Ucensee: Thomas Dicenzo License No.: 29801 i

' Location: Calais, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Intpection Date: 8/28/98 Inspector: SS ,

1 Comment: I a) Initial inspection not performed in 6 month frequency, license iscued 3/10/97.

File No.: 11 l Licensee: ATC Construction Corporation License No.: 05207 o Location:.Westbrook, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 1/15/98 Inspector: SS File No.:' 12 Licensee: Construction Materials License No.: 19203 Location: Bangor, ME Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced ,

License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 l

- Inspection Date: 9/8/98 Inspector: SS j INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS in addition, the following inspection accompaniments were made as part of the on site IMPEP l

- review.

Accompaniment No.: 1 Licensee: Quality Assurance Labs License No.: 05139 Location: South Portland, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Industrial Radiography Prior:ty: 1 Inspection Date: 8/6/98 Inspector: JH l Accompaniment No.: 2 Licensee: Colby College - License No.: 11219 Location: Waterville, ME Inspection Type: Routine, Announced License Type: Academic Type C Broad Priority: 5 inspection Date: 8/7/98 Inspector. SS 4

Cemment:

, a) Missed opportunities to interview radiation workers in laboratories.

I

~ . .- - . , , . _ _ , . - - - . - - .

.~ . . . - . - . _ . . ~ , ~ .. - - - - - - . - - - - - . . - .

1 e

e a

APPENDIX D LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS -

NOTE: ALL INSPECTIONS LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR

. - COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM. ,

). File No.: 1 Licensee: Bishop Testing Sentices, Inc. License No.: 23207 Location: Topsham, ME Amendment No.: .1 License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Termination Date issued: 12/20/96 License Reviewer: SS Comment:

a) Termination action complicated by the seizure of licensed material by the Intemal p Revenue Service.

i. File No.: 2 Licensee: Immunotech License No.: 05255-01

! . Location: Bar Mills, ME - .

Amendment No.: none License Type: Manufacturing and Distribution Type of Action: Termination

Date issued: 2/19/98 License Reviewer: SS

' File No.: 3 Licensee: LongviewInspection License No.: 17501 Location: Mexico, ME Amendment No.: 0 F License Type: Industrial Radiography Type of Action: New

Date issued: 8/25/98 License Reviewer: SS i

Comment:

[ a) _ Application did not include field forms referenced in licensee's procedures.

4 File No.: 4 L Licensee: Mobile Spect Imaging, LLC License No.: 05701 F

Location: Portland, ME Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Mobile Nuclear Medicine ~ Type of Action: Amendment Date lasued: 8/7/97 License Reviewer: JH

File No.

5-i Licensee: Penobscot Bay Medical Center License No.: 13701-01 .l Location:' Rockport, ME Amendment No.: 0  :

License Type

MedicalInstitution Type of Action: Renewal l Date lasued: .12/16/96 License Reviewer: SS Comment:

a) License did not incorporate correspondence in tie-down condition referenced in

l application. i t.

1 l

1 i

I I

I 1

=. - . . . ~.- . ._ .-._ . - - . - - - - - . . . . .-

i i

l .:

Maine Draft Report Page D.2 License File Reviews

- File No.: 6 :

Licensee: Maine Cardiology Associates Ucensa No.: 05627-01 Location: Portland, ME .

Amendment No.: 3 License Type: Limited Medical Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 2/11/97 License Reviewer: SS l ,

I File No.: 7

. Licensee: Binax,Inc. License No.: 05243 01 Location: Portland, ME _

Amendment No.: 6

. License Type: Manufacturing and Distribution Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 10/9/96 License Reviewer: JH -

File No.: 8

. Licensee: Bridge Corporation License No.: 11209 Location: - Augusta, ME Amendment No.: O License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 8/8/96 License Reviewer: SS Comments:

a) Reviewer did not address requirements for survey instrument, annual audit or facility diagram, b) No documentation of deficiency telephone call in the file.

File No.: 9 Licensee: Weavexx License No.: 25901

- Location: Norridgework, ME Amendment No.: 0 License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: New Date lasued: 4/9/96 License Reviewer: SS File No.: 10 Licensee: Universityof Maine License No.: 19827-01 Location: Orono, ME Amendment No.: 2

' License Type: Academic Broad Type A Type of Action: Amendment Date lasued: 7/30/97 License Reviewer: SS

- File No.: - 11 Licensee: Pharm Corp of Maine License No.: 11713-01MD Location: Augusta, ME Amendment No.: 0 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 8/26/96 License Reviewer: SS Comments:

a) Correspondence dating back to June 1988 incorporated into license.

b) Renewal took 33 months to issue.

Maine Draft Report Page D.3 License File Reviews l

File No.: .12 Licensee: Cityof Lewiston i License No.: 01501 Location: Lewiston, ME . Amendment No.: 1 Ucense Type: . Portable Gauge Type of Action: Amendment Date lasued: 8/4/96 License Reviewer: SS Comment:

a) Application in license file included privacy information that was not redacted or identified as such.

File No.: 13 Licensee: Bates College License No.: 01205-01 Location: Lewiston, ME- Amendment No.: 0 Ucense Type: Research and Development Type of Action:. Amendment Date lasued: 7/22/97 License Reviewer: SS File No.: 14 Licensee: Diamed,Inc. License No.: 05349 Location: South Windham, ME Amendment No.: 1 License Type: Manufacturing Type of Action: Amendment )

Date issued: 8/25/95 License Reviewers: SS, JH Comment:

a) Use of nonstandard language in license condition.

File No.: 15

- Ucensee: Fraser Papers Inc. License No.: 03311

' Location: Madawaska, ME Amendment No.: 1 License Type: Fixed Gauge Type of Action: Amendment i

~ Date lasued: 8/26/98 License Reviewer: SS i Comment:

a) Authorized user added to license without documentation of training or experience.

File No.: 16 Licensee: Maine Medical Center License No.: 05615-01 Location: Portland, ME Amendment No.: 2 License Type: MedicalInstitution Type of Action: Amendment

. Date lasued: 5/28/97 License Reviewers: SS, JH File No.: 17' Licensee: National Semiconductor Corp. Ucense No.: 05637-02 Location: South Portland, ME Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Self-Shielded Irradiator Type of Action: Amendment Date lasued: 7/17/98 Ucense Reviewer: SS Comment:

a) No documentation of deficiency telephone callin the file.

\

~

Maine Draft Report Page D.4 License File Reviews  ;

4 File No.: 18 Licensee: Aroostook Medical Center License No.: 03803-01 Location: Presque Isle, ME Amendment No.: 18 I License Type: Teletherapy . . Type of Action: Amendment Date lasued: 8/29/95 License Reviewer: SS File No.: 19 Licensee: CV Diagnostics,Inc. License No.: 11203 Location: Waterville, ME . Amendment No.: 1 License Type: Limited Medical Type of Action: Amendment ,

Date lasued: 8/27/98 License Reviewer: SS l l

l i

i

l

' APPENDIX E INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS NOTE: ALL INSPECTIONS LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM.

File No.: 1 Licensee: Pharm-Corp of Maine Licensee No.: 11713-01MD incident Log No.: None Site of incident: Lewiston, ME l

Date of incident: 3/21/96 '

. Type of incident: . Transportation Type of Investigation: None Investigation Date: N/A.

Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Nuclear pharmacy delivery vehicle involved in a

~ traffic accident during delivery of radiopharmaceuticals to local hospitals. Police officer at the scene had hazardous material training and determined that packages were not damaged.

Packages were subsequently delivered to hospitals without incident.

Comments:

a) No follow up to incident during next inspection of licensee, b) Incident not cross-referenced in license file.

File No.: 2 Licensee: Turner School District Licensee No.: Non-licensee Incident Log No.: None Site of Incident: Turner, ME Date of Incident: Unknown Type of incident: Abandoned material' Type of Investigation: Site Investigation Date: 9/24/96 Summary of Incident and Final Disposition: General licensed quantities of uranyl acetate and nitrate found in unoccupied school building. State personnel removed containers and ,

transported back to office for disposal.

File No.: 3 Licensee: Penobscott Bay Medical Center Licensee No.: 13701 Incident Log No.: None Investigation Date: 9/10/97 Date of Incident: 4/10/97 Type of incident: Procedural Failure Type of Investigation: Site Site of incident: Rockland, ME Summary of Incident and Final Disposition: A nuclear medicine technician failed to follow physician's instructions and administered Tc-99m hepatolite to patient when the result of a previous diagnostic test did not require administration of the radiopharmaceutical. Licensee classified incident as a reportable event. State personnelidentified the incident during routine inspection and concurred with licensee's findings.

.- ._ , -~ _._- -. . . . . . _ - . - . .--

Maine Draft Report Page E.2 incident File Review File No.: 4 Licensee: Industrial Metals Licensee No.: Non-licensee incident Log No.: None Site of Incident: Arundel, ME Date of Incident: 7/3/98 Type of incident: Contamination Event Type of Investigation: Site Investigation Date: 7/6/98 Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Shipment of metal cans returned to facility from Bethlehem Steel in Bethlehem, PA after load tripped the radiation monitor at the Bethlehem facility. Radiation monitors were set at 10% above local background. Truck returned to Maine under DOT exemption. State personnel surveyed truck and did not identify any radiation levels above background. Truck and its contents were subsequently released.

Comments:

a) No documentation of event, b) No supervisory review.

File No.: 5 Licensee: Worcester Energy Co.

Licensee No.: 29901 Incident Log No.: None Site of Incident: Cherryfield, ME Date of incident: 6/20/98 Type of incident: Damage to Equipment Type of Investigation: Site Investigation Date: 6/23/98 Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Fire in plant area involved a fixed gauge. State personnel responded to scene and sun / eyed gauge. Recommended that licensee have the manufacturer inspect gauge to determine if fire damaged the shielding to the source.

Comments:

a) No documentation of event, b) No supervisory review.

c) No follow-up performed to determine if shielding was evaluated.

i l

l i

l l

J

0 6

1 APPENDIX F STATE OF MAINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE 1

l I

\

l i

l l

l

Approved by OMB $

. No. 3150-0183 Expires 5/31/01 l

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM l 1

QUESTIONNAIRE l

State: MAINE l Reporting Period: June 3,1995 to September 13,1998 '

A. COMMON PERFORMANCEINDICATORS

1. Status of Materials inspection Proaram

1. Please prepare a table identifying the licenses with inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency set out in NRC Inspection Manual l Chapter 2800. The list should include initialinspectio.ns that are overdue.

Insp. Frequency Licensee Name (Years) Due Date Months O/D GS Building Systems 2 8/24/96 24 Eastern Maine Medical 3 8/8/97 12 Franklin Memorial 3 9/15/97 11 vY. ork Hospital 3 10/26/97 10

% University of Southem ME 3 9/26/97 11 Northeast Laboratory 3 9/26/97 11 4 Portable Gauge Licensees 3 8/97-12/97 8 12 CV Diagnostic Services 3 3/10/98 5 SNORDX 5 3/24/98 5

2. Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If so, please describe the plan or provide a written copy with your response to this questionnaire. Yes. All the above inspections are scheduled to be -

completed by September 4,1998, certalnly no later than 9/11/98, 2

Estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request: 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />. Forward comments regarding burden estimate to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0052), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

'SEP0S O

e e'

3. Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the State / Region is inspecting more or less frequently than calle'd for in NRC inspection Manual Chapter 2800 and state the reason for the change.

License type ME. Priority NRC Priority New Ucense 6 months 1 -

Portable Gauge 3 5 i AnalyticalInstruments 5 7 l Measuring systems Other 3 7 i Hospitals (no QMP) 3 5 Medical Private Practice (no QMP) 3 5 Instrument Calibration (<100ci) 3 5 General Ucense distribution (all) 3 5 Irradiators ~(self shielded) 3 5 l Civil Defense 4 5 l SNM sealed sources (ALL) 3 5 SNM Gen. Lic. Dist. 3 5 Teletherapy 1 3 I Veterinary 3 5 Manufacturing & Dist. 2 3 Source Material other 4 5 Source Material shielding 4 7 Source Material Munitions (IN) 4 ,

5 Source Material General Uc. Dist. 4 5 Some of the above inspection frequencies were the old NRC inspection f frequencies, circa 1992. At the time that Maine became an Agreement State we made all  !

of ourinspection frequencies part of the rules. This was due to the fact that a fee was l associated with the activity. In August of 1997 we went to an annual fee for funding the program that was dependent upon the type of licensed activity and removed the Inspection frequencies from the rules. This gave us the' option to decrease our frequencies to the present NRC frequencies, though we have chosen to not do that yet,

.since we believe that a more active inspection program is an asset to the overall program mission. A full listing with all program areas will be provided at the review. j l

l

,-w<

. \

l l l

4. Please complete the following table for licensees granted reciprocity duhng the reporting period.

Number of Licensees Granted Rec procity Number of Licensees Priority Permits Each Year inspected Each Year Service Licensees performing 95YR 0 95YR 0 teletherapy and irradiator source 96YR 0 96YR 0 installations or changes 97YR 0 97YR 0 98YR 2 98YR 2 -

95YR 6 95YR 2 1 96YR 8 96YR 6 97YR 5 97YR 2 98YR 4 98YR 3 95YR 1 95YR1 2 96YR 0 96YR j 97YR 0 97YR l 98YR 0 98YR l 95YR 13 95YR 2  !

3 96YR18 96YR 2 l 97YR 12 97YR1 98YR8 98YR1 4 0 0 All Other(5-7) 16 (all 4 years) 2

5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers were performed?

Ono, BlW (1997). Only 3 radiography licensees in state. (03320)

6. For NRC Regions,... .. ...(deleted).

II. Technical Quality of Inspections

7. What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period?

Updates to field notes in response to changes of NRC Inspection Manual.

All our inspection and licensing procedures mirror the NRC procedures to decrease

'; development time on the Maine staff.

d 3

8. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period. F lude:

Inspector Supervisor License Cat. Date Hyland Seeley 03320 8/3/98 Seeley Hyland 03225 7/28/98 ,

Seeley Schell 02120 5/23/97 l Seeley Schell 03320 7/23/96-

9. Describe internal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of inspectors in the field. If supervisory accompaniments were documented, please provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment. I Superviso'ry accompaniments have been conducted though no speelfic  !

procedure exists to dictate how it is conducted, and the only documentation is found in the licensee file, in the inspection notes. Supervisory reviews of inspections are expected to be conducted yearly of all radioactive materials inspectors, l

j b

4 e

4

l

10. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are allinstruments properly calibrated at the present time?

Instrument Model s Serial e State Sers s Probes Serial s State Eers Ca hb. date Calib. due Ludlum 19 91519 2559 06/19/1998 06/19/1999 Ludium 14c 110440 2594 44-9 PR079179 2780 06/19/1998 08/19/1999 Ludlum 14C 110429 2592 44-9 PRi i2135 2593 06/19/1998 06/19/1999 Ludlum 12 112782 2771 (1) 44-9 PR062594 2773 06/19/1998 06/19/1999 (2) 43-65 PR121883 2772 Ludlum 3 89035 2586 (1) 44-2 PR084347 2587 07/17/1998 07/17/1999 (2) 44 3 PR091425 2590 Ludlum 19 84332 2781 11/11/1997 11/11/1998 Lud!um 9 123337 2634 11/11/1997 11/11/1998 Ludlum 2200 59526 2637 (1) 43 10 PR036609 2636 07/16/1998 07/16/1999 (2) 44 10 PR052765 2635 Ludlum 14C 1C6627 2582 (1) 44 38 PR108061 2533 01/07/1998 01/07/1999 (2) 44-7 PR118716 2608 (3) 43-2 PR107555 2585 (4) 44 21 PR107268 2584 Lud'um 19 91532 2560 03/06/1998 03/06/1999 Ludlum 14C 54743 2799 (1) 44-40 PR042914 2798 01/07/1998 01/07/1999 (2) INT.

Ludium 15 98055 2580 (1) 44 7 PR107435 2581 01/07/1998 01/07/1999 (2) G 10 2 G44420 2638 Victoreen 290 481 2791 491-40 1664 2792 06/12/1998 06/12/1999 Vidoreen 290 484 2787 (1)490-40 1657 2788 06/29/1998 06/29/1999 (2) 489-110B 87037 13 2786 Vidoreen 450P 2067 2580 01/07/1998 01/07/1999 Dosimeter F H-4cf5 132487 2795 1.00 245-687 2796 06/12/1998 06/12/1999 q (2) lNT. l Dosimeter F H.4ef5 133487 2789 1.00 246 687 2790 06/12/1998 06/12/1999 l

• l (2) INT.

DRO. Shawn 0 200mR 4040188 2605 0429/1998 04/29/1999 0-1 R 4061318 2604 04'29/1998 04"29/1999 DRD. Jay 0 200mR 4040214 2606 04/29/1998 04/29/1999 01R 4061319 2603 0429/1998 04/29/1999 Pana sonic ZP 141 6N0003 2639 04~29/1998 04/29/1999 Panasonic ZP 141 6N0052 2640 04"29/1998 04/29/1999 Eberiane ESP 2 379 2783 SPA 3 2782 06/12/1998 06/12/1999 Air 11ow Cahb. C-828 1819 2777 10/17/1995 10/17/1996 Air Samplers 1 05/15/1996 05/15/1997 Air Samplers 2 05/15/1996 05/15/1997 Air Samplers 3 05/15/1995 05/15/1997 Ebertine PAC-1 S A 2785 AC-3 2784 05/26/1995 Disc. Use Johnson GSM 5 2365 2793 GsP 2A 958 2794 06/13/1995 Disc. Use 111. Technical Staffina and Trainina

11. Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested format below, of the professional (technical) person-years of effort applied to the agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the name, position. and, for Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in tne following areas administration materials licensing & compliance. emergem response, LLW. U mills, other if these regulatory responsibilities are omoe: between offices, tne table should be consolidated to include all personnel contributing to 5

i. : .

4 .

the radioactive materials program. Include all vacancies and identify all senior personnel assigned to monitor work of junior personnel. If consultants were used to carry out the program's radioactive materials responsibilities, include their efforts. The table heading should be:

lNAME POSITION l AREA OF EFFORT %FTE Jay Hyland Program Manager Administration (x-ray, 50 (SEIII) non ionizing etc.)

Low LevelWaste 10 Radioactive Materials _. 40

- Shawn Seeley Radioactive Radioactive Materials 100 Materials Inspector

, (ESHD Radioactive Radioactive Materials 100 Materials Inspector IVacant (ES 110 LLW Inspector Low LevelWaste . 100 I Vacant (AE)

12. Please provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since the last review, Indicate the degree (s) they received, if applicable, and additional training and years of experience in health physics, or other di,sciplines, if appropriate.

None. Though by the time of the review we hope to have at least one of the vacant positions filled.

~

13. Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the quatification requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection staff (for NRC, inspection Manual Chapters 1246; for Agreement States, please describe your qualifications requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend *and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements, i None yet, but we expect to have one soon, and a second person at an as yet unspecified time (early next year). The training requirements are the NRC requirements as specified in MC 1246.

14. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program during this period.

Robert Schell, P.E. left the program (manager)in August of 1997. Jay Hyland moved into the manager position (acting) until that positior' could be filled. Jay was officially placed into the manager position on 7/6/98.

Dale Randall (LLW Coordinator) left the program for a job in the Office of

' the State Nuclear Safety inspector. This took place in mid 98 as well.

15 List the vacant positions in each program, the length of time each position has oeen vacant and a brief summary of efforts to fill the vacancy.

- 6

, . . . ,.,,.-..--,,-,,,.,,.,,n,-,.n.

There has been a vacancy in the radioactive materials program since August 1997. The former program manager (Robert Schell) left State employment and Jay Hyland had been acting manager since that point.

. Jay has continued to do some radioactive materials inspections though it has not been full time since 8/97. Jay became the program manager in July of 1998, his former position in radioactive materials was opened for hiring on July 1,1998. We expect to have someone to fill the position by the time that the IMPEP team. arrives.

Dale Randall's position is expected to be filled sometime in early 1999. -

IV. Technical Quality of Licensino Actions

16. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, received a' major amendment, terminated, decommissioned, bankruptcy notification or renewed in this period. Also identify any new or amended licenses that now require emergency plans.

Decommissioned Philips Elmet, Lewiston Maine,01713 01 STB

17. Discuss any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during the reylew period.

none

18. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?

There we some updates to licensing checklists that were imported from the '

NRC checklists. We use NRC Reg. Guldes as well. '

19. For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type, any renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.

l V. Resoonses to incidents and Alleaations )

20. Please provide a list of the reportable incidents (i.e., medical misadministration, overexposures, lost and abandoned sources. incidents requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less notification, etc. See Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in Agreement States for additional guidance.) that occurred in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to NRC need not be repeated (i.e., those submitted under OMB 3150-0178). The list should be in the following format: j 1

LICENSEE NAME LICENSE # DATE OF INCIDENT / REPORT TYPE OF INCIDENT l l

21. During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source failure or approved operating procedures that were deficient? If so, how and when were other State /NRC licensees who might be affected notified? For States, was timely notification made to NRC7 For Regions, was an appropriate and timely PN generated? No source or procedural failures during the reporting period.

7 ,

1

4

22. For incidents involving failure of equipment or sources, was information on the incident provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency? Please provide details for each case.

23. In the period covered by this review, were there any cases involving possible wrongdoing that were reviewed or are presently undergoing review? If so, please describe the circumstances for each case.

Eastern Maine Medical Center allegation forwarded by Craig Gordon (RI) on 2/1/96 i to Bob Schell, by fax, after a 1131/96 telephone conversation. This was also followed up by a letter to Mr'. Schell signed by James Joyner, dated 3/6/96. This information prompted an inspection of the facility on 2/23/96 by Jay Hyland and i Shawn Seeley. No violations were noted specifically on the patient in question and otherwise for the brachytherapy program. The inspection was closed out on 7/12/96 with a letter to the licensee stating that no violations were noted.

24. Identify any changes to your procedures for handling allegations that occurred i during the period of this review. We are working toward a database for all allegation / notifications of incidents, whether they are technically reportable or not. This will essentially be a tracking database for allissues.

a. For Agreement States, please identify any allegations referred to your program by the NRC that have not been closed.

VI. General

25. Please prepare a summary of the status of the State's or Region's actions taken in response to the comments and recommendations following the last review.

Previous comments and recommendations:

) Compatibility of Regulations; We stated we would make a rule change in 1997 during  :

the last review, and did, though admittedly our rules are out of compatibility now.

• We are presently in the beginning stages of ruipmaking and expect to have rules that are fully compatible by March of 1999. We will notify our Region staff when all rule changes are in draft form for his review. This is expected no later than Octobe 30,1998. We understand that this issue obviously means the Maine program is operating outside of our compatibility agreement. We are working hard to correct this problem and expect to eliminate this problem in the future by updating our rules at least every 2 3 years. We also hope to maintain the regulations by keeping the materials section of the program better staffed.

Technical Advisory Committee; The committee is appointed and meets roughly quarterly, though this year our meetings have been delayed for a number of reasons. Our next meeting is tentatively scheduled for a day in the 3rd week full

- week of September, though this meeting is primarily related to emergency planning issues we hope to have an early draft of the upcoming regulations for them to review.

Training; Due to the in state discussions of training options and the New England and CRCPD discussions of walning options, and the obvious pressure on the Maine program for training due to tha imminent departure of our program manager, during the 1997 rulemaking (mentioned above) we decided the most important issue was l i

l

l l

l to raise fees to bring in enough money to cover the estimated costs associated with paying for the increased travel and training costs. We did not adopt any other substantive regulations at that time due to time constraints and concerns of any one rule issue troubling the ultimate adoption. We have increased our fees and i expect to bring in enough money to pay for the training and travel to all NRC i courses that would be required to train an individual to MC 1246 (NRC) standards. l Inspection Frequenciesi All Maine inspection frequencies are equal or more frequent j than all NRC inspection frequencies at this time. During the 1997 rulemaking the fee change funded the materials program without any dependence or charge for inspections. Due to this change we have now removed all inspection frequencies from our regulations which means that the priorities are set by administrative action and not rulemaking. Thus we expect to never be out of compliance on this issue in the future.

Inspector Performance and Capability; The previous program manager did complete some inspector reviews though not all that should have been accomplished by his own goals. We hope to correct this problem in the future by two proposed methods.

We will create administrative procedures that specifically regulre supervisor review of all materials inspectors on at least a yearly basis (every 12 months) In the future.

We also have the benefit that the new program manager came from the materials program and understands the importance of the inspector review system. We will also create specific supervisory inspector review checklists that will be kept in the personnel files for later review at the next IMPEP review.

Enforcement Procedures; The radiation control program did review and change its reporting practices at the last NRC review to eliminate the " points of emphasis" and

" areas of concern" from our inspection letters. We now deal with these issues ,

specifically at the exit interview with the licensee and thus follow the NRC format l using the Maine HHE 891 form for minor violations and the inspection letters for l l

more detailed notice of violations.

26. Provide a brief description of your program's strengths and weaknesses. These strengths I I

and weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, problems or difficulties which becurred during this review period.

Strengths: I feel our strengths are those of any Agreement State, timeliness, and closeness to the regulation community being the biggest. I also feel that since I was the senior materials inspector and am now the program manager that I have a keener sense of the importantIssues of the NRC Agreement State Program.

1 Weaknesses:Due primarily to the size of the program the loss of even one trained Individual has a significant effect on the program. When a new person is hired we ,

I need preferential trentment for training course attendance from the NRC. We Intend to pay for our training and travel and have budgeted accordingly. There is one additional weakness related to the staff size and our own desire to meet the NRC  !

training standards. That is with the frequency that the training courses are offered It may, depending on the Individual hired, be 10 to 16 months before we have a new person trained to the standard. We are presently hoping for an individual with a significant amount of radiation safety experience. Additionally large involved licensing actions like the Philips Elmet decommissioning take a significant amoun*

of time and staff effort.  ;

i

l D. NON. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Leatstation and Proaram Elements Reautred for Compatibility

27. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control program (RCP). Radiation Piotection Statutes 22 MRSA { 661-690

28. Are your regulations subject to a " Sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain and include the next expiration date for your regulations, no

29. Please complete the enclosed table based on NRC chronology of amendments. Identify those that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and l discuss any actions being taken to adopt them. Identify the regulations that the State has I adopted through legally binding requirements other than regulations.We are presently working on adopting all required regulations (and then roughly 2 years into the future as well) to alleviate this problem. We expect adoption by early 1999. We have stated a date of March 1 as a target.

30. If you have not adopted all amendments within three years from the date of NRC rule promulgation, briefly describe your State's procedures for amending regulations in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC, showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step. From the time of original publication and advertisement the shortest possible time for rule adoption is 120 days. This may be 150 days depending on comments received etc.

Our previous submittal to the NRC was that we would update our rules every 3 5 years. I now believe that we should be doing this every 2 3 years specifically to maintain compatibility. We are presently short staffed and are working to correct that problem so that we can be more proactive and less reactive. The additional staff should be able to eliminate the rule adoption problem for the foreseeable future. .

II. Sealed Source and Device Proaram

31. Prepare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issued during the review period. The table heading should be:

NONE SS&D Manufacturer, Type of Registry Distributor or Device Date Number Custom User or Source issued

32. What guides, standards and procedures are used to evaluate registry applications?

NRC LICENSElREVIEW GUIDES AND PROCEDURES.

33 Please include information on the following questions in Section A. as they apply to the Seated Source and Device Program: NO SPECIFIC PEOPLE ASSIGNED.

l l

]

l Technical Staffing and Training - A.llt.11-15 .-

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.lV.1618 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20 23 111. Low-level Waste Proaram

34. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Low-level Waste Program: Our low level waste position is primarily related to the legislature of Maine and the rules and regulations of the Texas-Vermont Malne compact. The person is specifically a staff person to the Advisory Commission on Radioactive Waste, a commission to the legislature Though based on the technical nature of the position we hope to blre a person that can be a support person to the Agreement program as well.

Status of Niaterials inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 Technical Quality of Inspections - A.ll.7-10 Technical Staffing and Training - A.Ill.11-15 Technical Quality of Ucensing Actions- A.IV.1618 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 IV. Uranium Mill Proaram NONE

35. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Uranium Mill Program: ,

Status of Materials inspection Program - A.I.13, A.I.6 Technical Quality of Inspections - A.II.710 Technical Staffing and Training - A.lli.11 15 TechnicalQuality of Licensing Actions- A.IV.16-18 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20 23 The listing of the Maine Radioactive Materials Licensees follows:

Heading:

License Number Licensee Name City Program Name Priority

a 19225 AFFILIATE D LABOR ATORY INC. BANGOR INVilRO TEST LAB 6 05201 ALB ANY INTE RNATIONAL B RUNSWICK PORTABLE GAUGES 3 03203 AROOSTOOK COUNTY ACTION PROG PRESQUE ISLE $F ME AS. SYS. 5 11201 ASTEN FORMING F ABRICS HOLDE N PORTABLE GAUGES 3 05207 ATC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC. WE STU ROO K PORTABLE GAUGE S 3 19201 ATLANTA WIRE C ARME L PORTABLE GAUGE S 3 31701-01 ATLANTlC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE KENNEBUNKPORT EF MEAS. SYS. 5 21201 B ARRE TT P AVING MATE RIALS, INC. DOVER FOEROFT PORTABLU GAUGES 3 01205-01 B ATES COLLEGE LEWISTON R & D OTHER 5 23209 B ATH IRON WORKS BATH INDUST R ADIOG TE MP 1 15201 BIGELOW LAB FOR OCE AN SCTENCE BOOTHB AY HARBOR R & D OTHER 5 05243 02G BINAX INC. PORTLAND GE N. LIC. DISTRIB 3 05243-01 BINAX INC. PORTLAND MAN. & DIST. OTHE R 1 1 05259 BLUE ROCK INDUSTRIES WE STB ROO K PORTABLE GAUGE S 3 19217 B OWATE R. INC. MILLINO CKE T FIE D G AUGE S 5 l 05205 BOWDOIN COLLEGE BRUNSWICK R & D OTHE R 5 11217 B RE SCIA CONSTRUCTION, ING. CLINTO N PORTABLE GAUGE S 3 I 11209 BRIDGE CORP. AUGUSTA PORTABLE GAUGES 3 05203 CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS PURTLAND ME D. PRIV. LTD. 3 03201 CARY ME DICAL CENTE R CARIBOU ME D. IN5T. LTD. 3 01201 CASCADE 5 AUBURN FIBER, INC. AUBURN FIED GAUGE S 5 01207 01 CENTRAL MAINE VEDiCAL CENTER LE WI5 TON ME D. IN5T. LTD. 3 09205 CHAMPION INTE RNATIONAL CO. BUCKSPORT FIM D G AUGE S 5 01501 CITY OF LEWISTON LE WISTON PORTABLE GAUGE S 3 05745 CITY OF PORTLAND PORTLAND EF ME AS. SYS. 5 19211 civil ENGINE ERING SE RVICE, ING BREWER PORTABLE GAUGE 5 3 11219-01 COLBY COLLE GE WATE RVILLE ACADEMIC TYPE B BROA 3 19203 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TE STING BANGOR PDRTABLE GAUGE 3 11203 CV DIAGNOSTICS WATE RVILLE ME D. PRIV. LTD. 3 11301 DAMESTMUDRE AUGUSTA PORTABLE GAUGES 3 31303 DAYTON S AND & GR AVE L CO., INC. HOLLIS CENTER PORTABLE GAUGES 3 05349 DIAME D, INC. SOUTH WINDHAM MAN. & DIST. OTHE R 2  ;

01301 DISNE Y E NVIROFIME NTAL 5 E RVICE S LISBON F ALLS EF ME AS. SYS. 5 29301 DOWNE AST COMMUNITY HOSPITAL MACHIAS ME D. INST. LTD. 3 J 13305 THOMASTON FIE D G AUGE S 5 ,

l DRAGON PRODUCTS CO.

IIJEDe lNST. LTD. 3 l 19301 01 'FASTERTTMAINTUE DICAL CE NTE R ~[DANGOR ~'

05703 ~ ~ElTTE7N5PECTIDh SERVICES,1NC " P ORTLAND . INDUST RADIOG TEMP 1 19303 DTGNEERlf7G DYN AMICS, INC. BANGOR 7DRTABLE G AUGE S 3 "

0F '~ E NVIR'O NME NTAllAN AG E ME NT, IN1 ' ERUNSWICK ~~

"" MW MEAS. SYS. 5 31301 *

~ESH~ASTOCI ATE S. INC. iWE3TB ROO K MlFME'AS. SYS. 5 T3303 FMC MARMFCDI.TOIDS -

!ROCKLAND ~Tf D^DTHE R 5 FURY ~JARESTORP OR ATION " TOLD TOWN 770G D G AUGE 5 5 19521 05335 0VITD~ATT01TTOR BLOOD RESE ARCH "SUARBOROUGH 1 RTD'OTHE R 5 ,

07301 01 f.FKAfrKEITTREMORTAGTO~5FITAL

~ '

FARMINGTON ~[ME D. INST. LTD.

1 3 '

03311 ~~iFRA5E R P APERS INC. -MADAWASKA ~FT D G AUGE S 5 29403 "~IGEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION ' ] ,"WO O DL AND F14 D G AUGE S 5 19401 01 iE AST MILLINOCKET . FIE D G AUGE 5 5 IGRE AT NORTHE RN P APER COMPANY i 75305 DF~ 'G5~EDEDif1G 5YSTEMS, INC. ' FlTTS F lE LD

• MAfl. & DIST. OTHE R 2 l 05403 ~G7A UEGENVIROME NTAL, INC.

~

' P ORTL AND ~ ~~FORTAB LE G AUGE S 3 f P'ORTABLE GAUGE S 3 U571F WAA0iNGTAW$0N ASSOCIATE S ' P ORTL AND 3'

vT.flT ' 'k ARDLOWACcDINN. INC. E LLSWORTH ' PORTABLE G AUGE S

1. DMTABLE G AUGE S 3 r2ND5' OPRYT.JCR00XEh AND SON 3 IN: TOP 5 HAM 3T30T 4E NRl!'WGO~00XCOTU5FITAT" SANFORD ME D th5YTTD 3 IO3I0f HOUCTON B AND'OfVATI5EET5~ CUCTON KM ME AS 5VS. 5 URoy' ADDI. fort REGTOfTAC RDTPTTAC- HOUETON MG D~.W5T LTD. 3" l l

[_

e Maine Radioactive Materalls Ucensee Ust .-

03409 HOULTON REGIONAL HOSPITAL HOULTON ME D. INST. LTD. 3 05523-01 HYCOR BIOME DIC ALIVE NTRE X PORTLAND MAN. & DIST. OTHE R 3 05453 IDE XK CORP. WE STBROO K R & D TYPE C/5 MALL 5 05433 LNDEPENDENT ROOF SERVICE,ING POWNAL PORTABLE G AUGES 3 11921-01 INLAND HOSPITAL WATE RVILLE ME D. INST. LTD. 3 07405 INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. JAY FIA D G AUGE S 5 09507 02 JACK 5ON LAB B AR RARB'UR IRR. 55 >10.000 Ci 3 09507 01 JACKSON LAB B AR HARBOR R & D TYPE A 2 27201 JOHNSONIBRIGGS COMPANY, INC. B E LFAST PORTABLE GAUGE 5 3 03501 J.T. LANGILLE, INC. PRE SQUE I5LE PORTABLE GAUGES 3 09511 KE NNE TH R. SHE A E LL5 WORTH PORTABLE GAUGE S 3 11727 KLMBERLY CLARK TISSUE COMP.\NY WIN 5 LOW FIMD GAUGES . 5 19515 LINCOLN PULP AND PAPER CO. LINCOLN FIED GAUGE S 5 17501 LONGVIEW INSPE CTION MEMCO INDUST RADIOG TEMP 1 05527 01 MAINE CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES P ORTLAND ME D. PRIV. LTD. 3 11507 MAINE EMERGENCY MGT AGENCY AUGUSTA CIVIL DE FE NSE 4 11503 MAINE HE ALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL AUGUSTA OTHER SERVICE 5 7 11211 MAINE LE AD POI 5ONING PREV. PRO AUGUSTA EF ME AS. SYS. 5 05515-01 MAINE MEDICAL CENTER PORTLAND ME D. IN5 T. LTD. 3 19603 MAINE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION BANGOR PORTABLE GAUGES 3 05661 MAINE 5 TATE LE AD YARMOUTH EF ME AS. SYS. 5 11601 MAINE YANKE E ATOMIC POWER CO. WISCASSET OTHER SERVICE S 7 11523-01 MAINE GE NE RAL ME DIC AL CE NTE R WATE RVILLE ME D. INST. LTD. 3 13601 MAR RINE R S, INC. ROCKPORT PORTABLE GAUGE 5 3 21601 MAYO REGIORAL HOSPITAL DOVER FO) CROFT ME D. INST. LTD. 3 17203 ME AD OMORD CORPORATION RUMFORD FIED G AUGE S 5 05517 01 ME RCY HOSPITAL PQRTLAND ME D. INST. LTD. 3 23611 01 MiD COAST HOSPITAL BATH ME D. INST. LTD. 3 19619-01 MILLINOCKET REGIONAL HOSPITAL MILLINOCKET ME D. INST. LTD. 3 05701 MOBILE SPECTIMAGING LLC PORTLAND MOBILE NUCLE AR MED 2 11525 MORRISON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WINSLOW PORTABLE GAUGES 3 09623 MT DE SE RT ISLAND BIOLOGICAL LA S AL5 BURY COVE R & D TYPE A 2 09609 01 MT. DESE RT ISLAND HOSPITAL B AR HARBOR ME O. INST. LTD. 3 07401 M&H LOGGING & CONSTRUCTION R ANGE LE Y PORTABLE GAUGES 3 05637-02 NATIONAL SE MICONDUCTOR CORP. SOUTH PORTLAND (RR. 5 5 >10.000 Ci 3 05507 SCARBOROUGH INVITRO TE ST LAB 5

!NORDX 19607 01 'NORTHE AST CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATI' 7B ANGOR TJE D. P RIV. LTD. 3

~ '

11505 NORTHE A5T EAB OR ATO RY 'WATE RVILLE ' OTHE R SE RVICE S 7 05605 ' ~ ~NORTHE AST Tf 57 CONSULTANTS '" ~WE STB ROO K ' M 'ME AS. SYS. 5 05615-02 iNORTHERN DIA'Gh0STIC LABORAT070i/ ~ . SCARBOROUGH ~rTKW 55 <10000 C6 3 03507 iNDRTHERN MAJNE MEDICAL CENTER '~iFORT KE NT fME D. INST. LTD. 3 05603 01 'NO. CUMBE RLAND ME MORIAL HOSP. 1 BRIDGTON ME D. INST. LTD. 3 13701 01 P E NOBSCOT B AY ME DICAL CE NTE R NROCKLAND MED. INST LTD. 3  :

T5711  ; OLD TOWN 'EF ME A5. SYS. 5

'jPENOBSCOT NATION HE ALTH DEPT.

19601 LINCOLN ME D. INST. LTD. 3

{PENOBSCOT VALLEY HOSPITAL 19701 ;PENQUIS COMMUNITY ACTION PROG. BANGOR EF ME AS. SY5. 5 I

11713-01MD7 PHARM CORP OF MAINE AUGUSTA HUCLE AR PHARMACY 1 25801 01 PIKE INDUSTRIE 5/TILCON MAINE "F AIRFIE LD 70RTABLE G AUGES 3 l

~

11703 ~ ~ TINE STATE HE 41TH & SAFETY ~ SOUTH CHINA ' TF ME AS. SYS. 5  !

3T72F02 M4TT& WRITFIC Y/ UNITE D TE CH.

' N b ERWICK ^ FIXE D G AUGE 5 5 ~~

05139 ~0U3DTV~KS5TMARCE LABS SOUTH PORTLAND 'lRD'UST R ADIOG TE MP 1 7570T' WElflNGTON F AIM /IEW GE N. HOSPl' MOWHE G AN M [ IFT5T. LTD. 3 M 705' RTCH ANO'P.~ KING

~

WF MTAS SV5~ 5 0F

~

WlVETlTIDITTANE~CO RP.

'E')LV ORCHARD LL5WO RTH B E ACW~ AFMFAT. 5YS. 5-

'RUMFORD - ~ ~~MEU. IN ST. LTD. 3 T770FOT- IITOMFORD CDMMUNITY HOSPITAL SACO ~ PORTABLE GAUGE S 3 31703 P.W. GILLE SPIE & ASSOCIATE S l

l

Malne Radioactive Materlats Ucensee Ust ,-

31703 R.W. GILLE5 PIE & ASSOCIATES SACO PORTABLE GAUGES 3 25705 SD WARRE N COMP ANY SKOWHE GAN FIE D G AUGE S 5 05753 SEVEE & MAHE R E NGINEERS,'ING. CUMBERLAND CENTE R PORTABLE GAUGE 5 3 31721 50UTHERN MAINE MEDICAL CENTER BIDDE FORD ME D. INST. LW. 3 M D1 5TEPHEN5 MEMORIAL HOSPITAL NORWAY ME D. INST. LTD. 3 O//v/ STRATTON ENERGY ASSOCIATE 5 STRAI IUN FIN D G AUGE S 5 19705 ST. JOSE PH HOSPITAL BANGOR ME D. INST. LTD. 3 01709-01 5T. MARY 3 RE G. ME DICAL CE NTE R LE WISTON ME D. INST. LTD. 3 01701 SUMMIT E NVIRONMENTAL CONSULT. AUBURN PORTABLE GAUGES 3 05219 5UMMIT, LTD. SCARBOMUUUH PORTABLE GAUGE 5 3 19705 5. W. COLE E NGINE E RING, INC. BANGOR PORTABLE GAUGES 3 05751 5.D. WARREN COMPANY WE STBROO K FIED G AUGES 5 05707 02 5.D. WARREN TECHNOLOGY CE NTER WE STBROO K FIE D GAUGE S 5 )

03503-02 THE ARO05TOOK MEDICAL CENTER PRE 5OUE ISLE ME D. INST. LTD. 3 03803 01 THE AROOSTOOK MEDICAL CENTE R PRESQUE ISLE TE LETHE RAPY l 19501 THE LANE CONSTRUCTION CORP HERMON PORTABLE GAUGES 3 29801 THOMAS DICENZO CALAIS PORTABLE GAUGE S ,3 19827-01 UNIVERSITY OF MAINE ORONO ACAD5 MIC B ROAD A 2 19827-025 NM UNIVERSITY OF MAINE ORONO S NM NE UTRON < 200 GM 3 31815 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND BIDDE FORD R & D OTHER 5 05825 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MAINE PORTLAND IRR. 55 <10000 Ci 3 25901 WE AVE XX NORRIDGEWOCK PORTABLE GAUGES 3 03903 WILLIAM K. HE R5EY CARIBQU PORTABLE GAUGE 5 3 29901 WORCE STE R E NERGY CO, ING. CHERRYFIELD FIE D G AUGE S 5 31905 YORK HOSPITAL YORK ME D. INST. J.TD. 3 i

1 4

)

. 1

7

. 's * *o*<

TABLE FOR QUESTION 29. [.

oR DATE DATE CURRENT EXPECTED 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED STARJS ADOPTION ,

t Any amendment due prior to 1991. Identify ,

each regulation (refer to the Chronology of i?

Amendments)

,i h Decommissioning- 7/27/91 Parts 30,40,70 i Emergency Planning- 4/7/93 Adopted by license procedure presently 3/I/99 Parts 30. 40. 70 Standards for Protection Against Radiation; 1/1/94 1/1/94 Part 20 ,

Safety Requirements for Radiographic 1/10 S4 2/11/92 ,

Equ;f,.T.ent Part 34 .

Noti 5 cation of Incidents: 10/15/94 3/1/99 Pads 20. 30. 31. 34. 39. 40. 70 * ,

Quality Management Program and 1/27/95 ]/1/94 ,

Misadministrations: Part 35 7/1/96 3/jf99 Ucensing and Radiation Safety Requirements 1 for Irradiators: Part 36 Definition of Land Disposal 7/22/96 not part OfOUT agreement and Waste Site QA Prograrrt Part 61 -

Decommissioning Recordkeeping- Documenta 10I25/96 3/1/99 tion Additions: Parts 30. 40. 70 Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial 1/28/97 3/l/99 . .

Mechanism. Parts 30,40. 70 Uranium Mdl Tailings: Conforming to EPA 7/1/97 nonein state /notin agreement  ;

Standards: Part 40 Timenness in cu....;ssioning sits /97 ,

3/1/99 l Parts 30,40,70 I

. . , . . . - .-. . _ . ~ . . . .

, . . lip i

l DATE DATE

. CURRENT EXPECTED  :;

10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED STATUS ADOPTION  :;

Preparation. Transfer for Commercial Dis 1/1/98 3/]ft)) f j

1 tnbubon. and Use of Byproduct Matenal for Medscal Use; Parts 30,32,35 b 3/1/t)9 Frequency of Medical Examinatums for Use of 3/13/98 draft Respiratory Protecbon Egs'- u..:  ;

E Low-LoelWaste Shipment Mandest 3/1/96 3/1/99

,j informahon and Res 3/{ft)g li*!

Performance Requirements for Radiography 6/30/98 ..

g Eqtapment - -

Radeshon Protection Regt.:.;.a.-C. Amended 8/14/98 ' draft 3/l/99 '!

oesnaions and Criteria Clanfication of Decm. -sseneng Funding 11/24/98 3/1/tyg Requrements 10 CFR Part 71: Competituhtywith the 4/1/99 license condition / rule reference 3/1/99 '

• Intemabonal At-.-A Energy Agency Medical Administrahon of Radia5on and - 10/20f98 3/[ftyg Radioactive Materials.

Temwnabon or Transfer of Licensed Acevities- 5/16/99 3f}ftyg l j

!- R&,w14eeping Requirements.

i l Resolubon of Dual Regulation of Airbome 119#0 0

! Efiluents of Radmactwe Matenals: Clean Air Act t 1/13/00 i j Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in  ;

i Areas Under Exclusive Federal Junsdiction i Within an Agreement State I r

Criteria for the Release of Induduals 1/29/00 3/]/99

• i Admirustered Radioactive Material Ucenses for industrial Radiography and 5/28/00 3/1/99

' Radiation Safety Requirements for industrial

! Radiography Operations; Final Rule .

f E I

1 i 1 ,

I i

._,t

4 k}: , $f . L 9 bf .k . f I iIf ;l' . ! t

1

. . . . ;s ;;: . Ii, tlt I s ,

R O DN

• E TI O CT EP PO g

g XD f EA 3 T

NS EU RT RA T U

OS b

Eu T t Ai DP O

D A

EE TU AD D

)

X A

1 2

/

7 n

i o

t a

n imr e

T e

s n

e c

U r

- f o i

a r

t e

i r

E C L f U

R R

F l

io C d 0 a 1 R

,