June 11, 2003

Kathleen A. Dunn, MPH, Director

Office of Community and Public Health

Department of Health and Human Services

6 Hazen Drive

Concord, NH 03301-6527

Dear Ms. Dunn:

On May 21, 2003, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the New Hampshire

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the New Hampshire program adequate but needs

improvement and not compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) program. 

Four recommendations were carried forward from the 2001 IMPEP review by the follow-up

review team.

The review team noted significant program improvements that have been implemented by New

Hampshire. The MRB also noted program improvements that had been implemented since the

review team completed their on-site review. These program improvements included: reduction

in the licensing and inspection backlogs; improvement in the program data management

systems; development of a new fee schedule through legislative action and rulemaking which

will now provide increased and designated funding for the program; a new salary schedule that

provides technical staff additional earning potential as well as additional career ladder potential;

aggressively recruiting for both the technical staff positions as well as the Bureau Administrator

position; and reorganization of some functions in the Bureau of Radiological Health. These

actions have demonstrated a high level of Department management support for the Bureau and

the Agreement State program, and a commitment to operating a fully satisfactory program in

the future.

The follow-up review team found New Hampshire’s performance to be satisfactory with

recommendations for improvement for the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. The

review team found New Hampshire’s performance to be unsatisfactory for the indicators, Status

of the Materials Inspection Program, and Legislation and Program Elements Required for

Compatibility. Although the findings for the program did not change, the review team found

noted improvements in the program, efforts to address the root causes of the program

deficiencies, and continued commitment by the Department to support the Bureau. However, at

the time of the review, the positive affect of these improvements had not yet been realized

within the program due to the short time between the new initiatives and the on-site review. 

The period of Heightened Oversight will continue in order to assess the progress of the State in

implementing the Program Improvement Plan which addressed the recommendations in the

final 2001 IMPEP report. Bi-monthly status reports and bi-monthly conference calls to discuss

progress on the State’s Program Improvement Plan will also continue. Based on the results of

the current IMPEP review and at the direction of the MRB, the next full review will be in

approximately one year.
Kathleen A. Dunn - 2 -

Section 4.0, page 10, of the enclosed final report presents the follow-up IMPEP team’s

recommendations for the State of New Hampshire. We received your April 28, 2003 letter

which described your actions taken in response to the recommendations in the draft report. 

We request no additional information at this time.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review. I

also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the

significant underlying improvements in the program which are beginning to be reflected in the

program’s performance. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the

future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: John Wallace, Deputy Commissioner

Department of Health and Human Services

Brook Dupee, Assistant Director

Legislative Liaison

Office of Community and Public Health

Dennis O’Dowd, Supervisor

Radioactive Materials Section

Bureau of Radiological Health

Donald P. Bliss, Director

New Hampshire Department of Safety

Office of Emergency Management

William Sinclair, Utah

OAS Liaison to the MRB
Kathleen A. Dunn - 2 -

Section 4.0, page 10, of the enclosed final report presents the follow-up IMPEP team’s

recommendations for the State of New Hampshire. We received your April 28, 2003 letter

which described your actions taken in response to the recommendations in the draft report. 

We request no additional information at this time.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review. I

also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the

significant underlying improvements in the program which are beginning to be reflected in the

program’s performance. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the

future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: John Wallace, Deputy Commissioner

Department of Health and Human Services

Brook Dupee, Assistant Director

Legislative Liaison

Office of Community and Public Health

Dennis O’Dowd, Supervisor

Radioactive Materials Section

Bureau of Radiological Health

Donald P. Bliss, Director

New Hampshire Department of Safety

Office of Emergency Management

William Sinclair, Utah

OAS Liaison to the MRB

bcc: Chairman Diaz

Commissioner Dicus

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

Distribution: See next page

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML031490791.wpd 

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy

OFFICE STP STP:DD STP:D DEDMRS

NAME DSollenberger:gd JMPiccone

(PLohaus for)

PHLohaus CJPaperiello

DATE 05/29/03 05/29/03 05/29/03 06/11/03

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Kathleen A. Dunn - 2 -

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP01) PDR (YES)

KSchneider, STP

LRakovan, STP RBores, RI

AMauer, STP KHsueh, ASPO

CMiller, NMSS/IMNS RStruckmeyer, NMSS

DWhite, RI/RSAO RVirgilio, STP

STreby, OGC JLieberman, OGC

MVirgilio, NMSS KCyr, OGC

FCameron, OGC ISchoenfeld, EDO

TCombs, OCA (2 copies)

New Hampshire File
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

FEBRUARY 4-6, 2003

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the follow-up review of the New Hampshire radiation control

program, conducted February 4-6, 2003. This follow-up review was directed by the

Management Review Board (MRB) based on the results of the June 25-29, 2001 Integrated

Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review. The MRB directed that a follow-up

review of the Technical Staffing and Training, Status of Materials Inspections, and Legislation

and Program Elements Required for Compatibility indicators, be conducted in about one year

from the MRB meeting based on findings of two unsatisfactory and one satisfactory with

recommendations for improvement for the performance indicators. The follow-up review also

included evaluation of the actions taken by the State to address the six recommendations made

during the 2001 IMPEP review. During the review, the review team also took the opportunity to

discuss the items to be addressed in a periodic meeting that were not reviewed as part of the

follow-up review. The summary of these discussions are in Appendix D. 

The follow-up review was conducted by a review team consisting of technical staff members

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Review team members are identified in

Appendix A. The follow-up review was conducted in accordance with the November 5, 1999,

NRC Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

(IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the follow-up review, which covered the period of June 30,

2001 to February 6, 2003, were discussed with New Hampshire management on February 6,

2003 and by teleconference on March 4, 2003. 

A draft of this report was issued to New Hampshire for factual comment on March 14, 2003. 

The State responded by letter dated April 28, 2003. The Management Review Board (MRB)

met on May 21, 2003 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the New

Hampshire radiation control program adequate, but needs improvement, and not compatible

with NRC’s program.

The New Hampshire Agreement State program is administered by the Bureau of Radiological

Health (the Bureau). The Bureau contains the Radioactive Materials Section (the Section),

Radiation Machines Section, Radiochemistry Section, Emergency Response Section, and

Radon Section. The Bureau is located within the Office of Community and Public Health,

Department of Health and Human Services (the Department). The Department Commissioner

is appointed by and reports to the Governor. Organization charts for the Department and the

Bureau are included as Appendix B. At the time of the follow-up review, the New Hampshire

Agreement State Program regulated approximately 80 specific licenses authorizing Agreement

materials. The review focused on the regulatory 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 New Hampshire. 

Prior to the follow-up review, the NRC conducted a period of heightened oversight of the

New Hampshire program which included New Hampshire developing and submitting a Program

Improvement Plan in response to the 2001 IMPEP review, and bimonthly conference calls with

the NRC to discuss New Hampshire’s progress in implementing the Program Improvement

Plan. The Program Improvement Plan was submitted on December 27, 2001. Conference

calls were held March 12, 2002, May 21, 2002, July 30, 2002, October 8, 2002, and December

17, 2002. The Program Improvement Plan and minutes from the calls can be found in

Appendix C. New Hampshire’s actions and their status were reviewed in preparation for this
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 2

follow-up review. New Hampshire’s completion of the majority of the activities in the Program

Improvement Plan has essentially eliminated the inspection backlog, eliminated the licensing

backlog, developed a new fee legislation and rule, and improved the operation of the Bureau. 

However, several of the program improvements and accomplishments were not evaluated by

the review team since they were outside the scope of the follow-up review.

The New Hampshire radiation control program has made improvements through developing

and passing legislation to allow the increased revenue from fees to be directed to the program

rather than the general fund, through creation of an HP series and career ladder, through the

hiring of two new staff, and through creative use of contractors to assist in licensing and

inspection activities. Considerable efforts were also expended in meeting with licensees to

gather their views and suggestions to improve the program and in improving licensing

timeliness. However, there continues to be two vacant staff positions, including the Bureau

Administrator. Although the inspection program has essentially eliminated the backlog of

inspections, the inspection program needs additional time to operate at a satisfactory level. 

The program has not yet progressed in the adoption of regulations to be compatible with the

NRC program, due to placing priority on the licensing and inspection programs as detailed in

their Program Improvement Plan and bimonthly call summaries. 

The review team's general approach for conduct of this follow-up review consisted of: 

(1) examination of the heightened oversight information; (2) review of applicable New

Hampshire statutes and regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Bureau’s

licensing and inspection data bases; (4) interviews with staff and management to answer

questions or clarify issues; and (5) review of the Bureau’s inspection files. The review team

evaluated the information gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for the two common

and one non-common performance indicators and made a preliminary assessment of the

State’s performance. 

Section 2 below discusses the results of the follow-up review of the New Hampshire program

for the two common performance indicators. Section 3 below discusses the results of the

follow-up review of the New Hampshire program for the one non-common performance

indicator. Section 4 summarizes the follow-up review team's findings and recommendations. 

The general status of the other aspects of New Hampshire program addressed during periodic

meeting discussions can be found in Appendix D.

2.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

The follow-up review addressed two of the five common performance indicators used in

reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State programs. The two indicators are: 

(1) Technical Staffing and Training and (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program. 

2.1 Technical Staffing and Training

During the follow-up review, the review team evaluated actions taken by the New Hampshire

program in response to the finding of satisfactory with recommendations for improvement made

during the 2001 IMPEP review, as well as, the status of the staffing and training of the New

Hampshire program.

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Bureau’s staffing level and staff

turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. To evaluate
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 3

these issues, the review team examined the Bureau’s training program, interviewed Bureau

management and staff, and reviewed job descriptions and training records. The review team

also considered any possible workload backlogs. 

The review team’s evaluation of the New Hampshire program’s response to the three

recommendations from the 2001 IMPEP review is presented below. 

Recommendation 3 

The review team recommends that the Bureau document a training plan for personnel that is

consistent with the guidance provided in the NRC/Organization of Agreement States Training

Working Group Report or the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246. 

Current Status

The Bureau has drafted a training/qualification policy following IMC 1246. The review team

discussed this approach and made several suggestions on simplifying the policy particularly in

the documentation required. The Bureau staff indicated that the training policy would be

finalized and implemented for all staff conducting materials activities. In the April 28, 2003,

response to the draft IMPEP report, New Hampshire submitted their final training and

qualification policy and supporting documentation. The documentation submitted satisfies

Recommendation 3; therefore, this recommendation is closed. 

Recommendation 4

The review team recommends that the Department take the necessary actions to address the

staff turnover and staff vacancies as appropriate. 

Current Status

The Bureau has experienced additional staff turnover since the previous review. The review

team believes that this turnover has significantly impacted the performance of the Section. The

Bureau Administrator retired in April 2002 and has not yet been replaced. Section Supervisors

have been taking turns serving in the Administrator position in an acting capacity. After

interviewing a number of candidates, the Bureau hired two health physicists. One for a position

in the Section and one position (CDC funded for bioterrorism) reporting directly to the Bureau

Administrator. The Section currently has one vacant staff position. The Department conducted

a nationwide search for the Bureau Administrator position. Although their searches found

qualified staff, two offers for the Bureau Administrator position were declined and one health

physicist declined the week before reporting to work. The main reason offered was low

salaries. The Department developed and received approval for a new Rad Health Physicist

series that provides increased salary potential and an extended career ladder. This new series

should help with staff hiring and retention. In early January 2003, the recently elected Governor

froze all vacant positions including the Bureau Administrator position and other staff positions,

but the Department has reallocated Federal monies to recruit staff for these positions. On July

1, 2003, these positions will be fee supported and, as such, they will not be subject to the hiring

freeze. 

Although both the Department and Bureau have taken reasonable actions to fill these key
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 4

program vacancies, the Bureau Administrator and the staff health physicist positions remain

vacant. Since the vacancies, in particular the Bureau Administrator position, significantly

impact the performance of the Bureau in other indicators, the review team considers this

recommendation open.

Recommendation 5

The review team recommends that the Bureau examine and change the business processes

and organization of the Section to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the program. 

Current Status 

The Bureau has stopped the practice of rotating staff on a routine basis and the Section

Supervisor for Materials and Section Supervisor for Machines assign work to the staff, as

necessary. Support for the Materials Section is also supplemented with contractor support

(in both licensing and inspection activities). Until permanent staff are available including the

Bureau Administrator, the review team does not believe this recommendation can be closed.

The review team concludes that the New Hampshire program has made progress with their

staffing and training, but still needs to complete the hiring of new staff. Based on the IMPEP

evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed that New Hampshire’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, continues to be

found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.

2.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

During the follow-up review, the review team evaluated actions taken by the Bureau in response

to the finding of unsatisfactory made during the 2001 IMPEP review, as well as the status of the

inspections performed since the 2001 review and the current status of due and overdue

inspections. 

The review team reviewed the timeliness of core and initial inspections performed since the last

review period, the current and projected backlog of overdue inspections, reciprocity inspections

and the timeliness in communication of inspection results to licensees. The review team

reviewed data provided by the Bureau from their inspection tracking system to determine the

timeliness of inspections, and reviewed inspection files to determine the date of the issuance of

inspection results to licensees relative to the date of inspection. 

The review team’s evaluation of the Bureau’s responses to the two 2001 IMPEP review 

recommendations is presented below.
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 5

Recommendation 1

The review team recommends that the process for extending inspection frequency for good

license performance be clearly defined and the Bureau maintain documentation of inspection

extensions.

Current Status

In response to this recommendation, the Bureau developed an “Inspection Interval Change

Authorization Form” that documents the basis for extending inspection frequency for good

licensee performance. The review team noted that this form was completed and placed in each

docket file, as appropriate. The Bureau’s inspection tracking spreadsheet was also modified to

include an entry for good performance extension. The next inspection due dates were

appropriately modified for those licensees with extensions. This recommendation is closed.

Recommendation 2

The review team recommends that the Bureau take the appropriate management measures to

conduct inspections (both initial and core) in accordance with the State’s established inspection

priority system.

Current Status

Since the last review, the Bureau completed 12 inspections of core licenses. Four of these

inspections were overdue at the time of the last review. Seven of the eight remaining

inspections of core licensees were performed overdue. The amount of time overdue ranged

from one to 13 months. There were no routine inspections overdue at the time of the follow-up

review. 

The State’s performance with regard to initial inspections was also reviewed by the review

team. At the time of the 2001 IMPEP review, there were three new licensees that had not been

inspected, one of which was overdue. Two of these licensees were inspected (including the

overdue one) and the third one, issued in October 2000, has yet to be inspected. Since the last

review, the Bureau has issued six new licenses that authorize byproduct materials. None of

these licensees have been inspected and one license, issued in January 2002, is currently

overdue. In summary, for initial inspections since the 2001 review, the program inspected one

licensee at 16 months, has two initial inspections currently overdue, and five initial inspections

not yet due.

Overall, the Bureau inspected nine of the 10 initial and core licensees overdue and currently

has two initial inspections overdue. The review team determined that two factors contributed to

the large percentage of overdue inspections. First, new licenses issued since the last review

were not added to the inspection tracking system and were not part of the inspection plan for

2003. The new licenses were part of the master list used for licensing. The Section Supervisor

indicated that this was an oversight, but also indicated that the lack of coordinated databases

contributed to the failure to schedule the initial inspections. The Bureau continues to track

inspections in the same manner as during the 2001 review. The Bureau is in the process of

testing a new integrated database for their licensing and inspection information which should

eliminate the difficulties experienced in the old system. Second, the review team found that the
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 6

Section Supervisor would schedule core inspections on the month before they were overdue

(i.e., inspection priority in years plus 25 percent since the last inspection), not at the anniversary

month and year (i.e., inspection priority in years since the last inspection). This scheduling

practice gives the Bureau little if no chance to conduct the inspection without it being overdue. 

Based on the Bureau’s performance for conducting initial and core inspections and their current

scheduling practices, the review team concludes that this recommendation should remain open.

The review team also reviewed the Bureau’s performance with regard to the conduct of core

inspections for licensees working in the State under reciprocity. During calendar year 2001, the

State approved reciprocity requests from seven core licensees and conducted one inspection. 

During calendar year 2002, eight core licensees worked in the State under reciprocity and one

inspection was performed. The performance criterion for reciprocity inspections is 20 percent

of core licensees as indicated in IMC 1220. The Bureau’s performance in 2001 and 2002 in this

area was approximately 13 percent of candidate licensees, or one inspection short of meeting

the performance criteria.

The timeliness of issuance of inspection results was the final area reviewed by the review team

for this indicator. The review team reviewed 19 inspection reports and found that 14 were

issued to the licensee within 30 days. Three of the reports were issued at 32, 34, and 84 days

after the conclusion of the inspection. At the time of the review, the results for a fourth

inspection had not been issued for an inspection that was conducted 47 days prior. The

Section Supervisor indicated that a number of issues identified during this inspection had not

been resolved, which was holding up the issuance of the report. The review team found a fifth

inspection that was completed in January 2002 where the report had not been issued.

Since the last review, the Bureau completed 14 core inspections, including two initial

inspections, and one reciprocity inspection. The completion of these inspections, seven of

which were completed by their contractor, puts the Bureau on a course to improve performance

for this indicator in the future. However, due to the percentage of inspections still performed on

an overdue basis, the failure to include initial inspections in the inspection tracking system, and

the practice of scheduling core inspections at the time they would become overdue, the review

team believes that continued improvement in the program is needed. 

In their April 28, 2003, response to the draft IMPEP report, New Hampshire indicated that the

two overdue initial inspections had been completed, as well as 10 other inspection which were

complete on schedule. New Hampshire also stated that they have implemented the new data

licensee database that integrates licensing and inspection information. The MRB noted these

improvements which should put New Hampshire in a position to perform at the satisfactory level

in the future. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that New Hampshire’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection

Program, continues to be found unsatisfactory.

3.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

The follow-up review addressed one of the non-common performance indicators used in

reviewing NRC Regional and Agreement State programs. The indicator is “Legislation and

Program Elements Required for Compatibility.” 
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 7

3.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

3.1.1 Legislation

The Department is authorized as the State’s radiation control agency under the New Hampshire

Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 1990, Chapter 125. The radiation control program is

administered by the Bureau. The review team identified that one legislative change affecting

the radiation control program was passed since the last review. This legislation created a

specified radiation fund which can only be used by the Bureau. The Bureau is developing a

revised fee schedule to increase fees and generate revenue for this fund. No other changes

have occurred in the legal authority of the Bureau since the previous review. 

3.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The New Hampshire Rules for Control of Radiation are found in He-P 4000-4095 and apply to

all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. New Hampshire requires a

license for possession, and use, of all radioactive materials. 

The review team’s evaluation of the New Hampshire response to the 2001 IMPEP review

recommendation is presented below. 

Recommendation 6

The review team recommends that the Bureau develop and implement an action plan to adopt

NRC regulations in accordance with current policy on adequacy and compatibility.

Current Status

The New Hampshire program has not yet taken action to adopt overdue regulations due to

focusing efforts of existing staff and contractors on improvements to the licensing and

inspection programs. This activity has historically been a responsibility of the Bureau

Administrator, a position which is currently vacant. The new bioterrorism health physicist

position has recently been assigned this activity, but this individual started three weeks before

the follow-up review, and therefore, no action has occurred to date. 

The following 11 regulations are overdue. Current NRC policy requires that Agreement States

adopt certain equivalent regulations or legally binding requirements no later than three years

after they are effective. The Bureau will need to promptly address these regulations in

upcoming rule making or by adopting alternate legally binding requirements.

 “Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70

amendments (59 FR 36026) that became effective August 15, 1994.

 “Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR Parts 20

and 61 amendments (60 FR 15649 and 60 FR 25983) that became effective March 1,

1998. Agreement States were expected to have an equivalent rule effective on the

same date, and this rule is designated as Category B for compatibility. 
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 8

 “Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Recordkeeping Requirements,”

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

June 17, 1996.

 “Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean

Air Act,“ 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65120) that became effective January 9,

1997.

 “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.

 “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. 

Portions of the Part 20 amendment are designated as Category A for compatibility.

 “Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70

amendments (62 FR 39057) that became effective August 20, 1997. Parts of this

amendment are designated as A or B for compatibility. 

 “Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, 70, 71,

and 150 (63 FR 1890; 63 FR 13733) that became effective on February 12, 1998. 

 “Minor Corrections, Clarifying Changes, and a Minor Policy Change,” 10 CFR

Parts 20, 35, and 36 amendments (63 FR 39477; 63 FR 45393) that became

effective October 26, 1998. Portions of this amendment are designated as Category A

for compatibility.

 “Transfer for Disposal and Manifests: Minor Technical Conforming Amendment,”

10 CFR Part 20 amendment (63 FR 50127) that became effective November 20, 1998. 

 “Respiratory Protection and Controls to Restrict Internal Exposures,” 10 CFR Part 20

amendment (64 FR 54543; 64 FR 55524) that became effective February 2, 2000. 

Portions of this amendment are designated as Category B for compatibility. 

The Bureau will need to address the following five regulations in upcoming rule makings or by

adopting alternate legally binding requirements:

 “Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications,”

10 CFR Part 39 amendment (65 FR 20337) that became effective May 17, 2000. 

Portions of this amendment are designated as Category B for compatibility. 

 “New Dosimetry Technology,” 10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and 39 amendments (65 FR 63749)

that became effective January 8, 2001.

 “Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct

Material,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, and 32 amendments (65 FR 79162) that became

effective Feb. 16, 2001. Portions of this amendment are designated as Category B for

compatibility.
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 9

 “Revision to the Skin Dose Limit,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (67 FR 16298) that

became effective April 5, 2002. Portions of this amendment are designated as Category

A for compatibility. 

 “Medical Use of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 32, and 35 (67 FR 20249) that

became effective April 24, 2002. Portions of these amendments are designated as

either Category A or B for compatibility. 

The review team determined that, at the time of the review, the State has not adopted 16 NRC

amendments to regulations required for compatibility. Eleven of these amendments are

overdue and will be adopted in a time frame greater than three years after the effective date of

their adoption by the NRC. Five of these eleven amendments are designated as A or B for

compatibility as indicated above, and the “Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and

Reporting," amendment requires that an Agreement State adopt the amendment in the same

time frame as the NRC, but no later than six months after the effective date of the NRC

amendment. 

The review team concluded that the delay in the promulgation of regulations in a timely fashion

was caused in part by the high turnover in staff, which required the Section Supervisor and

upper management to divert their time and efforts to other essential program elements such as

licensing, inspection, incident response, and training of new staff. The Bureau Administrator

vacancy significantly impacts this indicator since historically this individual has had responsibility

for rulemaking. Based on the follow-up review, the review team considers this recommendation

still open.

The State of New Hampshire has a sunset provision that limits any State regulation to a specific

period of time. For the State’s radiation protection regulations, this duration is eight years. The

review team noted that 16 of the 40 Parts that comprise the radiation regulations have expired. 

Six of these Parts are important to the Agreement State Program. These expired sections

include: He-P 4037: Transportation of Radioactive Material; He-P 4061: Land Disposal for LowLevel Radioactive - Technical Requirements for Waste Classification; 4062: Requirements for

Transfer of Low-Level Radioactive Waste for Disposal at Land Disposal Facilities - Manifest,

Records, Reports, Quality Assurance and Audits; He-P 4070: Fees; 4090: Annual Limits of

Intakes (ALI) and Derived Air Concentrations (DAC) of Radionuclides for Occupational

Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sanitary Sewers; and He-P

4092: Quantities of Radioactive Materials Requiring Labeling. These expired regulations may

impact the State’s ability to implement a complete regulatory program. There may be

regulatory gaps that need to be addressed through other implementing mechanisms such as

orders or license conditions. 

The State’s Program Improvement Plan presented to the NRC in December 2001 included

specific milestones for steps toward the adoption of NRC regulations required for compatibility. 

In implementing the Program Improvement Plan, the State chose to place other parts of the

plan as higher priority and, during the review period, chose not to work on the adoption of

regulations until after they had hired a Bureau Administrator which has not occurred to date. 

Since the 2001 review, the number of overdue NRC amendments has increased from eight to

11, and a number of the State’s regulations have expired. In their April 28, 2003, response to

the draft IMPEP report, New Hampshire submitted a rulemaking schedule that will address the

regulation adoption in several phases and has assigned a staff member to work on the
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 10

rulemaking. The MRB considers this plan a good step in bringing the New Hampshire program

into compatibility, which should be achieved by the end of calendar year 2003. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that New Hampshire’s performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program

Elements Required for Compatibility, continues to be found unsatisfactory.

4.0 SUMMARY

The review team noted significant program improvements that have been implemented by New

Hampshire. These program improvements included: reduction in the licensing and inspection

backlogs; improvement in the program data management systems; development of a new fee

schedule through legislative action and rulemaking which will now provide designated funding

for the program; a new salary schedule that provides technical staff additional earning potential

as well as additional career ladder potential; aggressively recruiting for both the technical staff

positions as well as the Bureau Administrator position; and reorganization of some functions in

the Bureau of Radiological Health. These actions have demonstrated a high level of

Department management support for the Bureau and the Agreement State program, and a

commitment to operating a fully satisfactory program in the future. 

The follow-up review team found New Hampshire’s performance to be satisfactory with

recommendations for improvement for the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. The

review team found New Hampshire’s performance to be unsatisfactory for the indicators, Status

of the Materials Inspection Program, and Legislation and Program Elements Required for

Compatibility. Accordingly, the follow-up review team recommended and the MRB agreed in

finding the New Hampshire Agreement State Program to be adequate, but needs improvement,

and not compatible with NRC's program. The review team considered recommending that the

New Hampshire Agreement State program be put on probation given that two indicators were

found unsatisfactory. However, the review team did not recommend probation because,

although the findings for the program did not change, the review team found noted

improvements in the program, efforts to address the root causes of the program deficiencies,

and continued commitment by the Department to support the Bureau in completing actions in

the Program Improvement Plan. The period of Heightened Oversight will continue in order to

assess the progress of the State in implementing corrective actions in the Program

Improvement Plan which addressed the recommendations in the final 2001 IMPEP report. Bimonthly status reports and bi-monthly conference calls to discuss progress on the State’s

Program Improvement Plan will also continue. Based on the results of the current IMPEP

review and at the direction of the MRB, the next full review will be in approximately one year.

Below is a summary list of open recommendations from the 2001 IMPEP report. No new

recommendations were identified during the current review. 

1. The review team recommends that the Bureau take the appropriate management

measures to conduct inspections (both initial and core) in accordance with the State’s

established inspection priority system. (Section 3.1) (Recommendation 2 from the 2001

report)
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 11

2. The review team recommends that the Department take the necessary actions to

address the staff turnover and staff vacancies as appropriate. (Section 3.3)

(Recommendation 4 from the 2001 report)

3. The review team recommends that the Bureau examine and change the business

processes and organization of the Section to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of

the program. (Section 3.3) (Recommendation 5 from the 2001 report)

4. The review team recommends that the Bureau develop and implement an action plan to

adopt NRC regulations in accordance with current policy on adequacy and

compatibility. (Section 4.1.2) (Recommendation 6 from the 2001 report)
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B New Hampshire Organization Charts

Appendix C Heightened Oversight Program Correspondence

Appendix D Periodic Meeting Summary

Attachment April 28, 2003 Letter from Kathleen A. Dunn, RN, MPH

Response to Draft Follow-up IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Dennis M. Sollenberger, NRC/STP Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Legislation and Program Elements Required for

Compatibility

Duncan White, NRC/RI Status of Materials Inspection Program

Periodic Meeting 
APPENDIX B

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

ML030720471



APPENDIX C

HEIGHTENED OVERSIGHT PROGRAM CORRESPONDENCE

Minutes of Bimonthly Conference Calls:

1. March 12, 2002 Minutes (ML030720593)

2. May 21, 2002 Minutes (ML030720603)

3. July 30, 2002 Minutes (ML03020608)

4. October 8, 2002 Minutes (ML030720611)

5. December 17, 2002 Minutes (ML030160738)

Letters from/to New Hampshire:

1. December 27, 2001 Letter from Shumway to C. Paperiello submitting Program

Improvement Plan (PIP) (ML020070241)

2. May 14, 2002 Letter from K. Dunn to P. Lohaus updating PIP (ML021410108)

3. July 23, 2002 Letter from K. Dunn to P. Lohaus updating PIP (ML022470292)

4. October 5, 2002 Letter from K. Dunn to P. Lohaus updating PIP (ML030720511)

5. December 12, 2002 Letter from K. Dunn to P. Lohaus updating PIP (ML030160717)
APPENDIX D

PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY

INCLUDING STATUS OF OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

FROM THE PREVIOUS REVIEW

A periodic meeting was held with New Hampshire management by Dennis Sollenberger, Team

Leader, and Duncan White, Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO), during the follow-up

review pursuant to STP Procedure SA-116, “Periodic Meeting with Agreement States Between

IMPEP Reviews.” Those topics normally documented during the periodic meeting that were

reviewed and documented as part of the follow-up review will not be discussed in this Appendix. 

The following topics were discussed. 

Status of Recommendations from 2001 Report

See Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 for details.

Program Strengths and/or Weaknesses

The Department representatives indicated that staffing still remains the biggest issue facing the

Bureau. This issue is discussed in Sections 2 and 3 of the follow-up review report. A second

bioterrorism position with health physics qualifications has been transferred to the

Commissioner’s office.

The use of contract personnel has been successful in completing numerous inspections and

licensing actions. These contracts expire in June 2003. The Department has initiated the

process to renew the contracts.

The Section Supervisor indicated that a significant amount of time is spent interviewing

potential candidates. In particular, the State’s personnel rules require that each candidate be

given a structured oral examination as part of the interview process. NRC staff offered

suggestions that other States have used to evaluate or screen candidates and agreed to

provide feedback on the structured oral exam currently in use.

The Bureau’s integrated database (“Rads”) is scheduled to begin testing the week of

February 10, 2003.

With the exception of gaining legislative approval for a dedicated fund for revenue generated by

fees, the Bureau has not taken any action since the 2001 review to amend the State’s

regulations. This issue is discussed in Section 3.2 of the follow-up review report. 

One area of success in the Bureau since the 2001 review has been the significant reduction of

the licensing backlog. This has been done with the use of a retired Agreement State supervisor

from Kentucky under contract and one of the program’s health physicists. 
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page D.2

Periodic Meeting Summary

Feedback on NRC’s Program

Department and Bureau representatives expressed their appreciation for NRC staff’s

assistance with regard to a number of issues raised over the past year. The Section Supervisor

stated that the NUREG 1556 series of program specific guidance documents has been very

useful. The Bureau also expressed concern with regard to NRC’s decision to extend inspection

frequencies (Temporary Instruction [TI] 2800/033). 

Department management indicated that the NRC should pursue an interagency program for the

exchange or temporary assignment of managers to the States. NRC staff indicated that, to

their knowledge, the last time there was a long-term personnel exchange of an NRC staff

member with an Agreement State staff member was 20 plus years ago.

Status of Program and/or Policy Changes

A detailed discussion of the program status can be found in Section 2.1 of the follow-up review

report. A discussion of the Legislative changes to the program can be found in Section 3.1 of

the follow-up review report.

Impact of NRC Program Changes

The NRC representatives discussed security issues, recent changes to the inspection

frequencies (TI 2800/033), the forthcoming departure of the Chairman from the Commission

and the status of pilot projects with regard to the National Materials Program.

Internal Program Audits and Self-Assessments

With the exception of the bimonthly status reports to the NRC in preparation for the conference

calls, the Department managers reported that currently no self-assessments were being

performed. It was noted that the Section Supervisor is required to provide weekly status reports

to Department management. Department management also noted that the Food and Drug

Administration conducted an audit of the Bureau’s radiochemistry laboratory. According to

Department management, the principal finding was the need to update the lab’s equipment.

Status of Allegations Previously Referred

Region I referred one allegation to the Bureau since the 2001 review. The Bureau indicated

that an on-site inspection was performed and that the only radioactive material present was an

exempt quantity source. The review team concluded that the Bureau’s actions were

appropriate.

Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) Reporting

A general discussion was held with the representatives concerning the NMED reporting system.

The review team noted that the Bureau had updated and closed out each of three events (one

event involved radium and other two involved byproduct material) reported since the 2001

review. The review team indicated that a new field was recently added to indicate if the event

was closed by the State. The Bureau was not aware of this change and indicated that they
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page D.3

Periodic Meeting Summary

would take appropriate action to update the NMED record.

Radiation Advisory Committee

At the invitation of Department management, the review team attended a regularly scheduled

meeting of the State’s Radiation Advisory Committee on the evening of February 4, 2003. At

the meeting, the review team leader provided an overview of the IMPEP process and follow-up

review. The RSAO provided an overview of the liaison functions between the NRC and the

States. The Committee expressed their appreciation for the NRC’s availability and assistance

to the Bureau during the heightened oversight process. The Committee also discussed Bureau

staffing, the distribution of potassium iodide tablets to the public, committee membership, the

need for fee increases to fund the Bureau, upcoming emergency response exercises, the need

to include the ability to issue civil penalties as part of the Bureau’s enforcement policy, and the

issuance of a letter of introduction as well as the Radiation Advisory Committee’s 2002 annual

report to the new Governor. 
ATTACHMENT

April 28, 2003 Letter from Kathleen A. Dunn, RN, MPH

New Hampshire’s Response to Draft Follow-up IMPEP Report

ML031340782