DATED: NOVEMBER 25, 1997 SIGNED BY: HUGH L. THOMPSON, JR.

Mr. Jeffrey B. Schaub, Director

Office of Health Management

Department of Health and Human Services

6 Hazen Drive

Concord, NH 03301-6527

Dear Mr. Schaub:

On November 13, 1997 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 to protect public health and safety and compatible

with NRC's program. 

Section 5.0, page 18, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team's

suggestions and recommendations. We have received your letter dated October

23, 1997, and appreciate the positive actions that you and your staff have

taken and are continuing to implement with regard to our comments. No

response to this letter is necessary.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next review will be

scheduled in four years, unless program concerns develop that require an

earlier evaluation.

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

the review and your support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward

to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely, /RA/

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director

 for Regulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Diane E. Tefft, Administrator

New Hampshire Radiological Health Bureau

Woodbury P. Fogg, State Liaison Officer
Mr. Jeffrey B. Schaub, Director

Office of Health Management

Department of Health and Human Services

6 Hazen Drive

Concord, NH 03301-6527

Dear Mr. Schaub:

On November 13, 1997 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 to protect public health and safety and compatible

with NRC's program. 

Section 5.0, page 18, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team's

suggestions and recommendations. We have received your letter dated October

23, 1997, and appreciate the positive actions that you and your staff have

taken and are continuing to implement with regard to our comments. No

response to this letter is necessary.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next review will be

scheduled in four years, unless program concerns develop that require an

earlier evaluation.

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

the review and your support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward

to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director

 for Regulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Diane E. Tefft, Administrator bcc: Chairman Jackson

New Hampshire Radiological Health Bureau Commissioner Dicus

Commissioner Diaz

Woodbury P. Fogg, State Liaison Officer Commissioner

McGaffigan

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP01)

SDroggitis PDR (YES_%__ NO___)

CGordon, RI SMoore, NMSS

DChawaga, RI FCameron, OGC KCyr, OGC

DWhite, RI HNewsome, OGC CPaperiello, NMSS

WPassetti, FL GDeegan, NMSS TMartin, AEOD

KSchneider LRakovan RQuillin, CO

New Hampshire File RBlanton

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\97FINLTR.NH; G:\CHM\NHIMP97.FIN *See previous concurrence.

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 OSP OSP:DD OSP:D DEDR

NAME CMaupin:nb PHLohaus RLBangart HLThompson

DATE 11/18/97* 11/19/97* 12/ /97 11/ /97

OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-18
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

AUGUST 19-22, 1997

FINAL REPORT

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the New Hampshire

radiation control program. The review was conducted during the period

August 19-22, 1997 by a review team comprised of technical staff members

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of

Florida. Review team members are identified in Appendix A. The review

was conducted in accordance with the "Interim Implementation of the

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Pending Final

Commission Approval of the Statement of Principles and Policy for the

Agreement State Program and the Policy Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," published in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1995, and the September 12, 1995, NRC Management

Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

(IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period

August 19, 1994 to August 22, 1997, were discussed with New Hampshire

management on August 22, 1997.

 

A draft of this report was issued to New Hampshire for factual comment

on September 22, 1997. The State of New Hampshire responded in a letter

dated October 23, 1997 (Attachment 1). The State's factual comments

were incorporated in the final report. The Management Review Board

(MRB) met on November 13, 1997 to consider the proposed final report. 

At the time of the review, the review team found the State’s performance

to be unsatisfactory for the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection

Program. Based on the unsatisfactory performance for this indicator,

the review team had originally recommended a finding of adequacy, but

needs improvement and compatible. However, based on actions taken

subsequent to the review, the review team found the State’s performance 

to be satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. The MRB found

the New Hampshire radiation control program was adequate to protect

public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program.

The New Hampshire Agreement State program is administered by the

Commissioner, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of

Health Management (OHM), Bureau of Radiological Health (BRH). The BRH

regulates approximately 100 materials licenses.

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. 

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and

non-common indicators was sent to the State on May 29, 1997. The State

provided a response to the questionnaire on August 11, 1997 and August

19, 1997. A copy of the response is included in Appendix C to this

report.

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted

of: (1) examination of the responses to the questionnaire, (2) review

of applicable New Hampshire statutes and regulations, (3) analysis of

quantitative information from the BRH licensing and inspection data

bases, (4) technical review of selected licensing actions and

inspections, (5) field accompaniments of two materials inspectors, and
New Hampshire Final Report Page 2

(6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify

issues. The review team evaluated the information gathered against the

IMPEP performance criteria for each common and non-common indicator and

made a preliminary assessment of the State’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

indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings,

recommendations and suggestions. Suggestions made by the review team

are comments that the review team believes could enhance the State's

program. The State is requested to consider suggestions, but no

response will be requested. Recommendations relate directly to program

performance by the State. A response will be requested from the State

to all recommendations in the final report.

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

The previous routine review concluded on August 19, 1994 and the final

results of the review were transmitted to Dr. Charles E. Danielson,

Director of the New Hampshire Division of Public Health and Services

(DPHS), on January 10, 1995. In letter dated February 21, 1995 from

Dr. Danielson to Mr. Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State

Programs (OSP), and during the MRB Meeting on the 1994 review, the State

responded to the 1994 program review findings, comments and

recommendations. In letter dated April 24, 1995 from Mr. Bangart to

Dr. Danielson, NRC evaluated the State responses and all items except

those identified below were closed. 

2.1 Status of Items Identified During the 1994 Routine Review

The open 1994 review findings that resulted in recommendations to the

State were assessed during this review. The open findings were in the

following areas: (1) Status and Compatibility of Regulations; (2) Legal

Assistance; (3) Enforcement Procedures; and (4) Inspection Procedures. 

The status of these recommendations is as follows:

(1) Status and Compatibility of Regulations. The State had not

adopted rules equivalent to the following NRC regulations: 

"Emergency Planning Rule," which was needed by April 7, 1993;

"Standards for Protection Against Radiation," which was needed by

January 1, 1994; "Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment,"

which was needed by January 10, 1994; and "Notification of

Incidents," which was needed by October 15, 1994. It was

recommended that the Division take steps to accelerate the

promulgation process and consider proposing legislation to exempt

the RCP from the administrative rulemaking procedures. 

 

Current Status: The State's corrective actions are as follows: 

"Emergency Planning Rule," has not been adopted by the State. 

Currently, the State has no licensees to which this rule would be

applicable. However, the State has indicated that the

requirements of this rule will be used in the review process for

new license applications that would be subject to the requirements
New Hampshire Final Report Page 3

of the rule. This rule is scheduled to be adopted in December

1997. "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," was adopted

by the State in February 1995, and was reviewed by the NRC. 

Comments were provided to the State in letter dated August 18,

1997 to Ms. Diane Tefft, Administrator, BRH, from Mr. Paul Lohaus,

Deputy Director, OSP. "Safety Requirements for Radiographic

Equipment," is currently being incorporated by industrial

radiography license conditions and is scheduled for adoption in

December 1997. "Notification of Incidents," was adopted in

February 1995 for Parts equivalent to 10 CFR Parts 20, 31, 40 and

70, and the equivalents for 10 CFR Parts 30, 34, and 39 are

scheduled for adoption in December 1997. In addition, in August

1995, the New Hampshire Administrative Procedure was amended to

exempt BRH regulations from the administrative rulemaking system

of numbering and drafting rules. Under the revised Administrative

Procedures, these rules are in compliance with the administrative

rulemaking system if the wording is consistent with the language

of the corresponding Federal regulations. This recommendation is

closed.

(2) Legal Assistance. Legal assistance was difficult to obtain from

the Attorney General's Office on routine legal matters. The

review team recommended that the Department take appropriate steps

to assure that the radiation control program had prompt legal

assistance available when needed.

Current Status: BRH has direct access to legal counsel. As the

result of a reorganization of the New Hampshire DHHS, an attorney

from the Attorney General's office was assigned to the OHM. BRH

is a part of OHM and it has direct access to this attorney. This

recommendation is closed.

(3) Enforcement Procedures. The BRH used the 1990 draft procedures,

which are modeled after Appendix C of 10 CFR Part 2, to guide the

enforcement process. However, BRH must publish regulations to

implement the authority to assess civil penalties and establish

severity levels for enforcement actions. It was recommended that

BRH consider including the revised inspection and enforcement

procedures, with the provisions for severity levels and civil

penalties, as part of the 1994 rulemaking package. 

Current Status: BRH has not adopted the rules or policy necessary

to implement severity levels and civil penalties. BRH indicated

that the current enforcement policy was effective in achieving

licensee compliance for the period. In addition, BRH indicated

that other rules necessary for compatibility had greater priority

and that changes as a result of the reorganization of the DHHS

have caused them to take a "waiting" approach in the area of

enforcement. This recommendation is closed and is evaluated

further in Section 3.4 under the indicator "Technical Quality of

Inspections." 
New Hampshire Final Report Page 4

(4) Inspection Procedures.

(a) Although exit interviews are not covered in the procedures,

the 1994 review team determined that materials inspectors

were attempting to hold exit meetings at the conclusion of an

inspection with the highest level of licensee management

available. The 1994 review team also determined, through

interviews with the inspectors, that oral debriefings are

held informally with the section supervisor after the

inspector returns from an inspection. It was recommended

that BRH update the general procedures in the compliance

manual to include such issues as exit meetings and oral

debriefings with the inspection supervisor following nonroutine inspections. It was also recommended that BRH review

and update, as necessary, the compliance manual chapters for

each major category of licensee to conform to the New

Hampshire regulations.

Current Status: The BRH revised its procedures to include exit

meetings and debriefings with the section supervisor after

inspections. In addition, the compliance manual chapter was

revised to conform with State regulations. This recommendation is

closed. 

(b) The review team found that several different versions of

inspection forms (field notes) had been used over the review

period. Although different inspection forms are

appropriately used for different types of licensees, BRH also

had several different sets of inspection forms for the same

or similar type licensees. It was recommended that BRH

review, update, and standardize the inspection forms used for

different categories of licensees.

Current Status: This recommendation was not adopted by BRH. BRH

indicated that because the rule update process is currently

underway, it would not be feasible to revise inspection forms

until the rulemaking process is completed; otherwise, revisions

would be based upon draft regulations. However, BRH stated that

it is currently using NRC inspection forms as references to

supplement its current inspection forms. Moreover, during this

review, the review team found that the inspection forms provided

good, consistent documentation of inspection findings. This

recommendation is closed. 

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 Staffing and Training; (3) Technical Quality of Licensing

Action; (4) Technical Quality of Inspections; and (5) Response to

Incidents and Allegations.
New Hampshire Final Report Page 5

3.1 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: 

(1) inspection frequency, (2) overdue inspections, (3) initial

inspection of new licenses, and (4) timely dispatch of inspection

findings to licensees. The review team evaluation is based on the New

Hampshire questionnaire responses regarding this indicator, data

gathered independently from the State's licensing and inspection data

tracking system, the examination of licensing and inspection casework

files, and interviews with the Radioactive Material Section (RMS)

Supervisor and staff.

The State revised its inspection priority system in May 1997 to closely

match the NRC system. Prior to that time there were several priority

categories which the State inspected more frequently than NRC. The

review team's assessment of the current inspection priorities verified

that inspection frequencies for various types or groups of licenses are

essentially identical to those listed in the NRC Inspection Manual

Chapter 2800 (IMC 2800) frequency schedule. In reviewing the State's

priority schedule, the review team noted that BRH continues to have

priority categories which are inspected more frequently than those of

the NRC. The teletherapy category licensees are scheduled to be

inspected on a two year frequency while the NRC inspects these licensees

at a three year frequency. In addition, all licenses listed as NRC

priority seven are inspected on a five year frequency.

The inspection frequencies of licenses selected for technical quality of

inspection review were compared with the frequencies of the State's

priority system and verified to be consistent and as frequent as similar

license types under the IMC 2800 system.

In their response to the questionnaire, New Hampshire indicated that as

of August 19, 1997, eight licenses identified as core inspections in

IMC 2800 were overdue by more than 25 percent of the NRC's frequency. 

The review team identified 24 core material licenses from the BRH

database. Thus, 33 percent (8 out of 24) of the core licenses were

inspected at intervals that exceed the State's and the NRC inspection

frequencies by more than 25 percent, which is unsatisfactory based on

the criteria in Management Directive 5.6. For the eight overdue core

inspections reported in the questionnaire, the RMS Supervisor discussed

a proposed schedule to complete inspections at each facility. The

overdue inspections were late by periods of time ranging from two to six

months.

During the review period, BRH conducted 22 inspections. The team

reviewed the RMS, "Goals and Objectives," which was revised July 7, 1997

and is used by staff to assist in implementation of program management. 

The review team noted that the program objective to perform four

inspections per month beginning late 1996 (identified as a priority 1

goal) was not met. 

For inspection planning, the RMS Supervisor reviews and updates

inspection data for new and existing licenses every two to three months. 

During interviews with the review team, the RMS Supervisor explained

that a list of initial and routine inspections coming due is generated
New Hampshire Final Report Page 6

and offered for sign-up to inspection staff. In lieu of making specific

inspection assignments, the review team found that inspection staff are

expected to initiate selection of inspections from the updated list when

made available by the RMS Supervisor. A review of the updated

inspection due list indicated that 23 inspections were due and not

scheduled, with 20 unassigned and three assigned to staff. The review

team recommends that core and non-core licensees be scheduled, assigned,

and inspected at regular intervals in accordance with the State's

established inspection priority system.

With respect to initial inspections of new licenses, the team reviewed

the inspection tracking system and found that initial inspections were

usually entered into the system together with existing licenses. The

review team found that inspection staff was generally able to identify

licenses due for initial inspection. 

BRH currently has a six month inspection frequency for all initial

inspections, which is a change from its previous inspection policy. 

During the 1994 review, it was recommended that BRH revise its

inspection priorities for initial inspections of new licenses to be no

less frequent than the NRC's, which is within six months of issuance or

receipt of material. In response to this recommendation, BRH indicated

that it had always performed initial inspections of new licensees for

priorities 1 and 2 at six months and 12 months for other priorities. 

The 12 month initial inspection exceeded the NRC recommended frequency

of six months. BRH stated that its rationale for the longer period was

that initial inspections should be reflective of complexity/hazard of

licensee use and should not merely be assigned to conform with NRC and

all of its new licenses were hand delivered. The New Hampshire

rationale to extend the interval of time for initial inspections of

priority 3 and other lower priority licensees was considered acceptable

during the 1994 MRB review of the pilot IMPEP and this recommendation

was closed. However, BRH changed the 12 months initial inspection

frequency policy to within six months of issuance for all initial

inspections.

From the review of the inspection database, BRH was not consistently

implementing its revised six month initial inspection policy. The

database list of 10 new licenses issued during the review period showed

that initial inspections were conducted within six months for two of the

licenses, one veterinarian clinic (priority 3) and a portable gauge

(priority 5). Initial inspection was performed for three other new

licenses at intervals of 11 months (portable gauge, priority 5), 10

months (portable gauge, priority 5), and 12 months (portable gauge,

priority 5) after license issuance or material receipt. Of the

remaining five new licenses, one license did not require an initial

inspection because it was equivalent to a NRC general license; one

medical license (NH-402R-American Health Centers Mobile Van Service,

priority 2) issued on November 1,1996 had not received material and did

not require an initial inspection, and three licenses needed initial

inspections and had not received them. These licenses included the

following: two issued in January 1997 (NH-417R-Geotechnical Services,

Inc., portable gauge, priority 5, and research and development (NH-418RMetabolic Solutions, in vitro kits, priority 5)), and one in April 1997

(NH-419R-Construction Materials Testing, portable gauge, priority 5). 
New Hampshire Final Report Page 7

The review team considered recommending that initial inspections of

licensees be performed within six months of license issuance or within

six months of the licensee's receipt of material and commencement of

operations, consistent with IMC 2800. The review team did not provide

a recommendation based upon the previous decision by the MRB. However,

the review team suggests that the State clearly establish its policy for

initial inspection of priority 3 and above licenses, (6 months or 12

months), and adhere to the established policy.

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was also evaluated

during the inspection file review. Of the 12 files examined, the

correspondence for eight inspections was sent to the licensee within 30

days of the inspection date. These inspections were clear, with no

deviations or violations of license requirements. Correspondence for

the other inspections was sent to the licensee more than 30 days past

the inspection date. In these cases varying levels of enforcement

actions were identified, leading to longer evaluations of inspection

results by staff. Three letters containing notices of violation were

transmitted within two months of the inspection date. A team inspection

of one of New Hampshire's major licensees identified significant

deficiencies in the program operations. The State verbally communicated

with the licensee to resolve deficiencies, but the final report dispatch

occurred approximately 10 months after the inspection was performed. 

The review team recommends that the State review and revise its

inspection report preparation process for those containing enforcement

actions to ensure timely issuance of inspection findings.

New Hampshire reported in their response to the questionnaire that 41

material licensees had submitted requests for reciprocity during the

review period. These 41 material licensees included nine industrial

radiography, 23 portable gauges, five service, one gas chromatography,

and three lixiscopes. These licensees made a total of 307 reciprocity

requests. Of the 307 reciprocity requests, 143 were portable gauges and

127 were industrial radiography. Of the nine industrial radiography

licensees, the State performed three inspections. This effort is below

the IMC 1220 guidance to inspect 50 percent of the priority 1

reciprocity licensees. The review team suggests that the State increase

reciprocity inspections to meet the inspection goals established in IMC

1220.

In a letter dated October 23, 1997 from Mr. Jeffrey E. Schaub, Director,

Office of Health Management, Department of Health and Human Services, in

response to the draft report, additional information was provided

regarding this indicator. The letter indicated that six of the eight

core inspections, which were overdue at the time of review, have been

conducted. In addition, Mr. Schaub indicated that the two remaining

inspections were to be completed within three weeks of the date of the

letter. (At the MRB meeting, Ms. Tefft reported that the two

inspections were being completed that week.) With the completion of the

six inspections, eight percent (2 out of 24) of the State’s core

materials inspections would exceed the State’s and the NRC’s inspection

frequency, which is satisfactory based on the criteria in Management

Directive 5.6. In the draft report, the review team initially

recommended that New Hampshire's performance with respect to the

indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found
New Hampshire Final Report Page 8

unsatisfactory. However, based on the actions taken by the State

subsequent to the review and the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review

team recommends that New Hampshire’s performance with respect to the

indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory

with recommendations for improvement.

3.2 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the

radioactive materials program staffing level, technical qualifications

of the staff, training, and staff turnover. To evaluate these issues,

the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to

this indicator, interviewed selected BRH managers and staff, and

considered any possible workload backlogs.

The New Hampshire organization chart shows that, at the time of the

review, BRH was funded for 17 persons or 15.26 FTE’s based on 1800

hrs/year/FTE. BRH consists of five sections with approximately 2 FTE’s

in Radon, 2.5 FTE’s in Emergency Response, 2 FTE’s in Radiochemistry, 3

FTE’s in Radiation Machines and 3 FTE’s in RMS. The remainder of the

FTE’s are devoted to clerical and general administrative tasks. An FTE

for the BRH is considered to be 37.5 hours per week. The RMS Supervisor

and five staff members devote 3.0 FTE effort to the agreement materials

program which includes materials licensing, inspection, event response,

and laboratory activities. These staff members also have additional

responsibilities in the Radiation Machines Section and to a lesser

degree in the other sections.

In comparison to other Agreement States, it appears there are a

sufficient number of FTE’s allocated to the agreement materials program

to assure public health and safety. There has been no turnover since

the last review and all of the staff have a wide range of licensing and

inspection experience. There are a number of overdue core license

inspections and a licensing backlog that may be partially due to the

difficulty in balancing personnel between the RMS and the Radiation

Machines Section since personnel are rotated between the two sections on

a monthly basis, without regard to whether inefficiencies result from

disruption of licensing and inspection casework in progress. At the

time of the review, there were 98 pending licensing actions, 8

administrative renewals (fee collection), 60 amendments, 5 new license

applications and 25 renewals. Sixty-nine of these actions were overdue

by over 1 year. As noted in Section 3.1, at the time of the review, 33%

of the core inspections were overdue and only 22 inspections had been

performed in the last three years. In light of the current backlogs in

the inspection and licensing programs, the review team recommends that

the State evaluate the number of staff needed to implement the program.

BRH has established qualifications for its technical classifications,

including Health Physicist 1 (HP1) and Health Physicist 2 (HP2). The

Supervisor position is an HP2 with the remaining staff HP1’s. 

Applicants at the entry level, HP1, are required to have a baccalaureate

degree in a physical or life science. BRH does not have a formal

documented qualification and training program for the materials staff. 

However, staff are assigned increasingly complex licensing and

inspection duties under the direction of the RMS Supervisor. Staff are
New Hampshire Final Report Page 9

required to demonstrate competence during review and accompaniments by

the Supervisor. This information was verified through discussions with

managers and staff. All of the BRH staff have attended NRC courses that

include, licensing and inspection procedures, five week applied health

physics, industrial radiography and medical uses, as well as courses in

emergency response and portable gauges. The review team determined that

all staff utilized for the agreement materials program were technically

qualified by evidence of their training and experience. However, the

State would benefit from a training and qualifications plan in the event

of staff turnover. The review team suggests that the State develop a

written training and qualifications plan.

Based on the training that program personnel have received, the State

appears supportive of continued staff training, and management

demonstrated a commitment to staff training during the review. However,

the State has concerns as to the impact of NRC’s change in policy for

funding State training and is looking into other training options.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that

New Hampshire’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical

Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licenses and casework for 13 license

actions in 13 specific license files, representing the work of five

license reviewers. The license reviewers and RMS Supervisor were

interviewed when needed to supply additional information regarding

licensing decisions or file contents.

Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness, consistency, proper

radioisotopes and quantities authorized, qualifications of authorized

users, adequate facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency

procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. 

Licenses were reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and

for its conditions and tie-down conditions, and overall technical

quality. Casework was reviewed 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, prelicensing visits, peer or supervisory review as indicated, and proper

signature authorities. The files were checked for retention of

necessary documents and supporting data.

The license casework was selected to provide a representative sample of

licensing actions which had been completed in the review period and to

include work by all reviewers. The sampling included three of the

State's major licenses and included the following types: research and

development; manufacturing and distribution; industrial radiography;

nuclear medicine; mobile nuclear medicine; academic; portable gauges;

and “in vitro” laboratory. Licensing actions reviewed included 3 new, 2

renewals, 7 amendments and 1 termination. In discussions with BRH

management, it was noted that there were no major decommissioning

efforts underway with regard to agreement material in New Hampshire. 

Also there were no identified sites with potential decommissioning
New Hampshire Final Report Page 10

difficulties equivalent to those sites in NRC's Site Decommissioning

Management Plan. A list of these 13 licenses with case specific

comments can be found in Appendix D.

The review team found that the licensing actions were very thorough,

complete, consistent, of high quality, and with health and safety issues

properly addressed. The licensee's compliance history appeared to be

taken into account when reviewing renewal applications as determined

from documentation in the license files and/or discussions with the

license reviewers. No exemptions were issued by BRH during this review

period.

The review team found that terminated licensing actions were well

documented, showing appropriate transfer records and survey records. A

review of the licensing actions over the period showed that almost all

terminations were for licensees possessing sealed sources. These files

showed that documentation of proper disposal or transfer was available.

Licenses were renewed on a five year frequency. The State is extending

the renewal period for certain licensees on a case-by-case basis. 

Licenses that are under timely renewal are amended as necessary to

assure that public health and safety issues are addressed during the

period that the license is undergoing the renewal process. Each

licensing action receives supervisory chain review.

The review team found that the current staff is well trained and

experienced in a broad range of licensing activities. The casework was

reviewed for adequacy and consistency with the New Hampshire procedures. 

The casework review also indicated that the BRH staff follow their

licensing guides during the review process to ensure that licensees

submit the information necessary to support the license. The licensing

guides were very similar to the NRC guides.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that

New Hampshire's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical

Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Inspections

The team reviewed the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and

the data base information for 12 materials inspections conducted during

the review period. The casework included the State's three materials

inspectors and covered a sampling of different license types as follows: 

one broad academic; one veterinary clinic; one research and development

facility; six portable gauges; nuclear medicine private practice; and

two hospitals. Appendix E provides a list of the inspection cases

reviewed in-depth with case-specific comments.

The inspection procedures and techniques utilized by New Hampshire were

reviewed and determined to be generally consistent with the inspection

guidance provided in IMC 2800. The team reviewed inspection reports and

found them to be comparable with the types of information and data

collected under NRC Inspection Procedure 87100 and New Hampshire

procedures. Inspections were performed on an unannounced basis.
New Hampshire Final Report Page 11

The inspection field notes provided good, consistent documentation of

inspection findings. The State uses separate field notes for different

types of inspections covering the areas of industrial/research

development, industrial radiography, commercial irradiator (draft),

medical broad-scope, portable gauges, and medical and teletherapy

licenses. 

Inspection reports were reviewed to determine if the reports adequately

documented the scope of the licensed program, licensee organization,

personnel protection, posting and labeling, control of materials,

equipment, use of materials, transfer, and disposal. The reports were

also checked to determine if the reports adequately documented

operations observed, interview of workers, independent measurements,

status of previous noncompliance items, substantiation of all items of

noncompliance, and the substance of discussions during exit interviews

with management. To assure consistency and quality of reports, the RMS

Supervisor provided thorough review and comment, and signed all

inspection correspondence and field notes. Overall, the review team

found that the inspection reports showed excellent quality and attention

to detail. From review of casework, reports contained only minor

discrepancies from standard practices or established BRH guidance. 

Routine enforcement letters were drafted by inspectors and were issued

to licensees by the RMS Supervisor. When the licensee responds to a

notice of violation (NOV), the response is given to the inspector to

evaluate the licensee's response, and to draft a reply for the RMS

Supervisor's signature. The review team noted a good practice in that

the State uses a violation response review checklist to document staff

reviews of the licensee response to each NOV. The review team also

identified a concern related to State follow-up of licensee responses to

NOVs. During review of two inspection files which resulted in

significant problems with the licensee's program, it was noted that a

staff follow-up inspection was not conducted to confirm that the

commitments made in the licensee's correspondence were implemented. The

review team recommends that appropriate State follow-up inspection be

conducted to confirm implementation of licensee corrective actions when

significant problems have been identified.

For the casework reviewed, documented inspection findings led to proper

regulatory actions and appropriate enforcement. The RMS Supervisor

stated that inspection results showed licensee compliance was acceptable

during the review period and that escalated enforcement action beyond

the issuance of NOVs was limited. A finding from the previous NRC

review recommended the State include rules for enforcement procedures

with provisions for severity levels and civil penalties. In their

response to that recommendation, New Hampshire committed to revising the

rules after July 1995. In evaluating the State's response to the NRC

recommendation, the review team found that the rules in question were

not adopted and the manual which describes the program for determining

enforcement actions was not revised. The State indicated because of

higher priorities and the reorganization of the DHHS, they took a

"waiting" approach in the area of enforcement. The State continued to

base their enforcement program primarily upon onsite inspections and

NOVs. If escalated enforcement is necessary, the State DHHS has

authority to issue orders.
New Hampshire Final Report Page 12

Two inspector accompaniments identified in Appendix E were performed by

a review team member on July 10, 1997 (self-shielded irradiator) and

July 24, 1997 (hospital-nuclear medicine program). Of the remaining two

inspectors, one was accompanied during previous assessments and the

other was not yet performing independent inspections of high priority

licensees. During the accompaniments, inspectors demonstrated

appropriate inspection skills and knowledge of the regulations. The

inspectors were well prepared and thorough in the review of licensee

radiation safety programs. Inspection techniques were observed to be

performance oriented, and the technical performance of the inspectors

was at a high level. The inspections were adequate to assess

radiological health and safety at the licensed facilities.

New Hampshire has a policy of performing annual supervisory

accompaniments of inspectors. In response to the questionnaire, the

State reported that supervisory inspector accompaniments were not

performed during the review period. Instead, the RMS Supervisor

explained that senior staff reviewed inspector methods during team

inspections, inspectors debriefed with supervisory staff upon return to

the office, and inspection reports received close supervisory review. 

Since supervisory accompaniments provide program management a better

understanding of both the inspectors' abilities and competence to

perform in the field, the review team suggests that the State adhere to

the policy of annual supervisory accompaniments of all inspectors. 

The review team noted that New Hampshire has an ample number of portable

radiation detection instruments for use during routine inspections and

response to incidents and emergencies. For large licensed programs, a

laboratory specialist assists inspectors by taking confirmatory

measurements and samples. The State uses an outside vendor for

instrument service and calibration. The portable instruments used

during the inspector accompaniments were observed to be operational and

calibrated. The instrument storage area is co-located with the

radiation counting laboratory and storage area for emergency response

kits. A sampling of portable instruments maintained at each location

were available and found to be within calibration. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that

New Hampshire's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical

Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

In evaluating the effectiveness of the State's actions in responding to

incidents and allegations, the review team examined the State's response

to the questionnaire regarding this indicator, reviewed the incidents

reported for New Hampshire in the "Nuclear Material Events Database"

(NMED) against those contained in the New Hampshire files, and reviewed

the casework and supporting documentation for 14 material incidents and

six allegations. 

The 14 incidents selected for review included two misadministrations,

one lost source, seven contamination events, three reported loss of

control of radioactive material, and one non-routine event and are

listed in Appendix F. Of the six allegations reviewed, NRC Region I
New Hampshire Final Report Page 13

office referred two to the State and the other four came directly to the

State from allegers. 

Responsibility for initial response and follow-up actions to material

incidents and allegations rests with the BRH staff. When the BRH is

notified of an incident during working hours, time permitting, a staff

meeting is held to discuss the approach to be taken regarding the

incident. For incidents during non-work hours, each staff member has a

copy of the "DHHS Initiator Handbook." The Handbook is designed to be

used for response to incidents involving radioactive materials and

nuclear reactors. The radioactive materials section of the Handbook is

sufficient to provide guidance for responding to incidents involving

radioactive materials, including transportation incidents. Copies of

the Handbook and current call lists, which include beeper numbers, are

distributed periodically to all appropriate persons or agencies. The

State provides a 24-hour emergency number for anyone to use to report

emergencies involving hazardous materials. When a radiological incident

is suspected, BRH staff is contacted.

The review of incident casework, licensing casework, and interviews with

staff revealed that incidents are promptly evaluated for the need for

on-site investigations. For those incidents not requiring on-site

investigations, copies of letters to licensees were in the licensing

files indicating that the incident would be investigated during the next

scheduled inspection. 

In responding to incidents and allegations, BRH had taken prompt,

appropriate action. The review of casework indicated that incident

reports were thorough and well-documented. The incident reports were

reviewed and signed by the section supervisor.

The review team also found good correlation of the State's response to

the questionnaire, the incident information in the casework, and the

incident information reported on the NMED system printout for New

Hampshire. For discrepancies that did exist between the NMED

information and the State casework, satisfactory explanations for the

discrepancies were available. The reviewer obtained a May 8, 1997, "All

Events - On line Report," of the incidents sent to Idaho National

Environmental Engineering Laboratory (INEEL) for inclusion in the NMED

system. The Report indicated that 21 incidents had been reported to

NMED; however, the NMED file only included 11 of these incidents. The

10 incidents were not included for the following reasons. Although a

New Hampshire licensee was involved, two incidents occurred in another

State (Massachusetts) and would be listed under that State. Three

incidents did not include radioactive material, and one involved nonAtomic Energy Act material. Two incidents were considered information

and not reportable events, and one event involved a reactor. In

addition, one incident was received by INEEL and should have been a part

of the system but the contractor misunderstood the data. 

The State has implemented an excellent tracking system for incident

files. Within the past few months the State obtained access to the

Internet system and is able to promptly submit information to the NMED

system. The State is also updating its entries into the NMED system by

submitting data on incidents that occurred in 1995 and 1996 that were
New Hampshire Final Report Page 14

not previously reported to the NRC. The New Hampshire incident tracking

system is able to manipulate data in a number of ways for regulatory

use. For example, the State can retrieve data based upon license

number, dates of occurrence, or the county in which the event occurred. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that

New Hampshire'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 Regulations;

(2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. 

New Hampshire's agreement does not cover uranium recovery operations, so

only the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable

to this review.

4.1 Legislation and Regulations

4.1.1 Legislative and Legal Authority

The DHHS is authorized as the State radiation control agency under New

Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 1990, Chapter 125. RSA 125-

F:1 to F:25 covers radioactive material, RSA 125:77-b covers radioactive

waste, and RSA 125-B covers emergency response. The radiation control

program is administered by the BRH. No changes have occurred in the

legal authority of the BRH since the previous review. As noted earlier

in the report under Section 2, "Status of Items Identified in Previous

Reviews," a legislative amendment was made to the New Hampshire

Administrative Procedure Act in August 1995 to exempt BRH regulations

from the formatting requirements of RSA 541-A:3 of the State's

administrative rulemaking system. 

4.1.2 Status and Compatibility of Regulations

The "New Hampshire Rules for Control of Radiation," apply to all

ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. 

The review team discussed the procedures used in the State's regulatory

process with the BRH Administration and found that New Hampshire offers

the public the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and

participate in public hearings following the comment period. Procedures

also require the proposed regulations, proposed hearing date, hearing

comments and analysis be well publicized. Draft copies of the proposed

regulations are provided to NRC during the rule development process. 

Final regulations are subject to a "Sunset" law and rules expire exactly

six years after promulgation for rules adopted prior to August 1994, and

after eight years for rules adopted after August 1994. After

expiration, these regulations must be resubmitted in their entirety to

remain in effect. 

The review team evaluated New Hampshire's responses to the

questionnaire, NRC correspondence pertaining to the review of New
New Hampshire Final Report Page 15

Hampshire's regulations subsequent to the August 1994 review and

discussed the State's regulations or other legally binding requirements

with the BRH Administrator and the RMS Supervisor to determine the

status of the New Hampshire program with regard to the implementation of

regulatory requirements needed to maintain compatibility through

December 1997. 

The State adopted two NRC regulation amendments since the 1994 review

and are implementing five other NRC rules by other legally binding means

or they are not currently applicable to the New Hampshire program:

! "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," 10 CFR Part 20

amendment (56 FR 61352) was needed by January 1, 1994. As noted

earlier in the report, this regulation was adopted by the State in

February 1995, and was reviewed by the NRC for compatibility and

health and safety. This review was in accordance with the new

Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs approved by the Commission by Staff Requirements

Memorandum (SRM) dated June 30, 1997. Based upon this review, two

comments with compatibility significance were provided to the

State in letter dated August 18, 1997. The review team notes that

NRC staff is currently reviewing all Agreement State equivalent

regulations to Part 20, Standards for Protection Against

Radiation. The reviews are being conducted outside the IMPEP

process.

! "Notification of Incidents," was adopted in February 1995 for

Parts equivalent to 10 CFR Parts 20, 31, 40 and 70, and the

equivalents of Parts 30, 34, and 39 are scheduled for adoption in

December 1997. These requirements were reviewed by the NRC as a

part of the overall revision of the New Hampshire Rules for the

Control of Radiation which were published in 1995. In letter

dated January 3, 1997, these regulations were found to meet the

compatibility requirements, at that time. In accordance with the

new Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement

State Programs, the review team's evaluation found these

regulations would continue to be compatible.

! "Emergency Planning Rule," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, which was

needed by April 7, 1993. As noted earlier, currently the State

has no licensee to which this rule is applicable. However, the

State has indicated that the requirements of this rule will be

used in the review process for new license applications for

facilities that should be subject to these requirements. This

rule is a part of the rulemaking package which is scheduled for

adoption by December 1997.

! "Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment," which was needed

by January 10, 1994. The review team verified that these

requirements are being incorporated by industrial radiography

license conditions. This rule is a part of the rulemaking package

which is scheduled for adoption by December 1997.

! “Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators,” 10

CFR Part 36 amendment (58 FR 7715) which became effective on July
New Hampshire Final Report Page 16

1, 1993 and was due by July 1, 1996. The State currently has no

licensee to which this rule is applicable. However, the State has

indicated that the requirements of this rule will be used in the

review process for new irradiator license applications, if any are

received.

! "Decommissioning Recordkeeping and Documentation Additions," 10

CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 amendments (58 FR 39628) which became

effective on October 25, 1993 and were due by October 25, 1996. 

The State adopted a portion of this regulation in 1993. However,

the State has indicated that the requirements of this rule are

being used in the review process for licenses. The remaining

portion of this rule is a part of the rulemaking package which is

scheduled for adoption by December 1997.

! "Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial Mechanism," 10 CFR

Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments (58 FR 68726 and 59 FR 1618) that

became effective on January 28, 1994 and was due by January 28,

1997. Note, this rule was designated as a Division 2 matter of

compatibility. Division 2 compatibility allows the Agreement

States flexibility to be more stringent (i.e., the State could

choose not to adopt self-guarantee as a method of financial

assurance). If a State chooses not to adopt this regulation, the

State's regulation, however, must contain provisions for financial

assurance that include at least a subset of those provided in

NRC's regulations; e.g., prepayment, surety method (letter of

credit or line of credit), insurance or other guarantee method

(e.g., a parent company guarantee). This rule has been

redesignated as Category D under the Commission’s new adequacy and

compatibility policy; however, NRC is currently proposing to

redesignate it as Categroy D-H&S. [For category D-H&S

regulations, States should adopt the essential objectives of the

rule in order to maintain an adequate program.] The State

currently has no licensee to which this rule is applicable. 

However, the State has indicated that the requirements of this

rule are being used in the review process for new license

applications. This rule is a part of the rulemaking package which

is scheduled for adoption by December 1997.

! "Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities," 10 CFR

Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments (59 FR 36026) that became

effective on August 15, 1994 and was due by August 15, 1997. The

State currently has no licensee to which this rule is applicable. 

However, the State has indicated that the requirements of this

rule are being incorporated as conditions in licenses issued

before rule promulgation. This rule is a part of the rulemaking

package which is scheduled for adoption by December 1997.

! "Quality Management Program and Misadministration," 10 CFR Part 35

amendment (56 FR 34104) which became effective on January 27, 1992

and was due by January 27, 1995. BRH has not adopted the

equivalent to the quality management and misadministration rule. 

As reported to NRC previously, BRH withheld adoption of this rule

pending NRC's revision to 10 CFR Part 35. The NRC is continuing

to defer compatibility findings for Agreement States that have not
New Hampshire Final Report Page 17

yet adopted a compatible Quality Management rule until NRC issues

a revised 10 CFR Part 35 rule. When the revision of 10 CFR Part

35 is completed, compatibility designations for the new rule will

be established, and an effective date for Agreement State

implementation will be set. 

The following rules were not due during the review period but are in the

rulemaking process to be adopted by December 1997:

! "Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Distribution and Use of

Byproduct Material for Medical Use," 10 CFR Parts 30, 32 and 35

amendments (59 FR 61767, 59 FR 65243, 60 FR 322) that became

effective on January 1, 1995 and will become due on January 1,

1998.

! "Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10

CFR Parts 20 and 61 amendments (60 FR 15649, 60 FR 25983) that

will become effective March 1, 1998. Agreement States are

expected to have an effective rule on the same date.

! "Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of Respiratory

Protection Equipment," 10 CFR Part 20 amendments (60 FR 7900) that

became effective on March 13, 1995, and will become due on March

13, 1998. Note, this rule was designated as a Division 2 matter

of compatibility. Division 2 compatibility allows the Agreement

States flexibility to be more stringent (i.e., the State could

choose to continue to require annual medical examinations). This

rule has been redesignated as Category D-H&S under the

Commission’s new adequacy and compatibility policy. (For category

D-H&S regulations, States should adopt the essential objectives of

the rule in order to maintain an adequate program.)

! "Performance Requirements for Radiography Equipment," 10 CFR Part

34 amendments (60 FR 28323) that became effective on June 30,

1995, and will become due on June 30, 1998.

! "Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and

Criteria," 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 amendments (60 FR 36038) that

became effective August 14, 1995 and will become due on August 14,

1998.

! “Medical Administration of Radiation and Radioactive Materials,”

10 CFR Part 20.35 amendment (60 FR 48623) that became effective on

October 20, 1995 and will become due on October 20, 1998.

! "Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements," 10 CFR

Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments (60 FR 38235) that became

effective November 24, 1995, and will become due on November 24,

1998. 

While no rulemaking action has been initiated, at the time of the review

the following items are on the BRH’s regulatory agenda:

! "Compatibility with the International Atomic Energy Agency," 10

CFR Part 71 amendment (60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1,
New Hampshire Final Report Page 18

1996 and will become due on April 1, 1999. The State plans to

adopt this rule in 1999.

! “Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Record Keeping

Requirements,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 61, 70 (61 FR 24669) that

became effective on May 16, 1996. This requirement need not be in

effect until May 16, 1999. The State plans to adopt this rule in

1999.

! “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 and will

become due January 9, 2000. The State plans to adopt this rule in

1999.

! “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 on January 13, 1997

and will become due January 13, 2000. The State plans to adopt

this rule in the year 2000.

! “Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive

Material,” 10 CFR Part 20.35 amendment (62 FR 4120) that became

effective on January 29, 1997 and will become due January 29,

2000. The State plans to adopt this rule in the year 2000.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that

New Hampshire's performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation

and Regulations, be found satisfactory. 

4.2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

The review team did not evaluate the State's sealed source and device

(SS&D) program during this review. Although New Hampshire currently has

responsibility for this area, the State did not perform any SS&D

evaluations during the period of the review. The review team verified

this information by review of the national SS&D registry and confirmed

that the State had not issued any SS&D sheets during the review period. 

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statement, "Criteria for Guidance of

States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Authority and Assumption Thereof

by States Through Agreement" to allow a State to seek an amendment for

the regulation of LLRW as a separate category. Those States with

existing Agreements prior to 1981 were determined to have continued LLRW

disposal authority without the need of an amendment. Although New

Hampshire has LLRW disposal authority, NRC has not required States to

have a program for licensing a LLRW disposal facility until such time as

the State has been designated as a host State for a LLRW disposal

facility. When an Agreement State has been notified or becomes aware of

the need to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, they are expected to put

in place a regulatory program which will meet the criteria for an

adequate and compatible LLRW disposal program. There are no plans for a
New Hampshire Final Report Page 19

LLRW disposal facility in New Hampshire. Accordingly, the review team

did not review this indicator.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found the State's

performance to be satisfactory with respect to each of the indicators,

Technical Staffing and Training, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions,

Technical Quality of Inspections, Response to Incidents and Allegations,

and Legislation and Regulations. The review team found the State's

performance to be satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for

the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program. Accordingly, the

review team recommended and the MRB concurred, in finding the New

Hampshire program to be adequate to protect public health and safety,

and compatible with NRC's program.

Below is a summary list of recommendations and suggestions, as mentioned

in earlier sections of the report, for evaluation and implementation, as

appropriate, by the State.

Recommendations:

1. The review team recommends that core and non-core licensees be

scheduled, assigned, and inspected at regular intervals in

accordance with the State's established inspection priority

system. (Section 3.1)

2. The review team recommends that the State review and revise its

inspection report preparation process for those containing

enforcement actions to ensure timely issuance of inspection

findings. (Section 3.1)

3. The review team recommends that the State evaluate the number of

staff needed to implement the program. (Section 3.2)

4. The review team recommends that appropriate State follow-up to

inspections be conducted to confirm implementation of licensee

corrective actions when significant problems have been identified. 

(Section 3.4)

Suggestions:

1. The review team suggests that the State clearly establish its

policy for initial inspection of priority 3 and above licenses, (6

months or 12 months), and adhere to the established policy.

(Section 3.1)

2. The review team suggests that the State increase reciprocity

inspections to meet the inspection goals established in IMC 1220. 

(Section 3.1)

3. The review team suggests that the State develop a written training

and qualifications plan. (Section 3.2)
New Hampshire Final Report Page 20

4. The review team suggests that the State adhere to the policy of

annual supervisory accompaniments of all inspectors. (Section

3.4)
New Hampshire Final Report Page 21

Good Practice:

The State uses a violation response review checklist to document staff

reviews of how the licensee addresses their response to each NOV. 

(Section 3.4)
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B New Hampshire Organization Charts

Appendix C New Hampshire's Questionnaire Response

Appendix D License File Reviews

Appendix E Inspection File Reviews

Appendix F Incident File Reviews

Attachment 1 New Hampshire's Response to Draft Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Cardelia H. Maupin, NRC/OSP Team Leader

Response to Incidents and Allegations

Legislation and Regulations

Craig Gordon, NRC/RI Status of Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

William Passetti, FL Technical Staffing and Training

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions
APPENDIX B

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
APPENDIX C

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

QUESTIONNAIRE - RESPONSE