November 8, 2005

John A. Stephens, Commissioner

Department of Health and Human Services

129 Pleasant Street

Concord, NH 03301-3857

Dear Mr. Stephens:

On November 2, 2005, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed

follow-up 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 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s (NRC) program. In addition, due to the program improvement shown since the

2004 IMPEP review, the period of heightened oversight status of the New Hampshire program

will be discontinued.

Section 4.0, page 9, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s findings resulting

from this follow-up review. I would like to acknowledge the many program improvements that

have been implemented by the New Hampshire radiation control program to address our

performance concerns noted in the 2004 IMPEP review. These actions demonstrate a high

level of management support for the Agreement State program by the Department of Health

and Human Services, and a commitment to operating a fully satisfactory program in the future. 

Based on these results, the next full review will be in approximately three years. However, the

MRB directed that periodic management meetings be conducted between the NRC and the

New Hampshire program on an annual basis until the next IMPEP review. During these

periodic meetings, we will evaluate the longevity of the program improvements noted during this

review, as well as the implementation of your overall program. 

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

excellence in program administration demonstrated by your staff, as reflected in the team’s

findings. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Martin J. Virgilio

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, 

 State and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure: As stated

cc: See next page
J. A. Stephens - 2 -

cc: John Wallace, Associate Commissioner

Department of Health and Human Services

Mary Ann Cooney, Director 

Division of Public Health Services

Alice Bruning, Administrator

Bureau of Prevention Service

Dennis O'Dowd, Chief

Radiological Health Bureau

Craig Jones, UT

OAS Liaison to the MRB
J. A. Stephens - 2 -

cc: John Wallace, Associate Commissioner

Department of Health and Human Services

Mary Ann Cooney, Director 

Division of Public Health Services

Alice Bruning, Administrator

Bureau of Prevention Service

Dennis O'Dowd, Chief

Radiological Health Bureau

Craig Jones, UT

OAS Liaison to the MRB

Distribution:

DIR RF Chairman Diaz

DWhite, RI Commissioner McGaffigan

AMcCraw, STP Commissioner Merrifield

RStruckmeyer, NMSS Commissioner Jaczko

CMiller NMSS/IMNS Commissioner Lyons

STreby, OGC

HFelsher, OEDO

FCameron, OGC

TCombs, OCA (2)

KCyr, OGC

JStrosnider, NMSS

DCD (SP01) SISP Review Complete

: Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available

: Non-Sensitive G Sensitive

DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML053080306.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 JGZabko:gd

(DKRathbun for)

DKRathbun JRSchleuter

(DKRathbun for)

MJVirgilio

DATE 11/4/05 11/4/05 11/4/05 11/8/05

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

FOLLOW -UP REVIEW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

JULY 26-27, 2005

 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 July 26-27, 2005. This follow-up review was directed by the Management

Review Board (MRB) based on the results of the June 21-25, 2004 Integrated Materials

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

the Technical Staffing and Training and Compatibility Requirements indicators be conducted in

approximately one year from the MRB meeting based on findings of satisfactory, but needs

improvement and unsatisfactory for the aforementioned performance indicators. The follow-up

review also included evaluation of the actions taken by New Hampshire to address the four

recommendations made during the 2004 IMPEP review. Other aspects of the program not fully

evaluated as part of the follow-up review, were discussed at a periodic meeting held in

conjunction with the review. The summary of these discussions is in Appendix D. 

A draft of this report was issued to New Hampshire for factual comment on August 26, 2005.

The State responded by letter from Mary Ann Cooney on September 26, 2005. The MRB met

on November 2, 2005 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the New

Hampshire radiation control program adequate to protect public health and safety and

compatible with NRC's program. In addition, the period of heightened oversight status of the

New Hampshire program will be discontinued.

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 February 26, 2004,

NRC Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

(IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the follow-up review, which covered the period of June 26,

2004 to July 27, 2005, were discussed with New Hampshire management on July 27, 2005. 

The New Hampshire Agreement State program is administered by the Radiological Health

Section (the Section). The Section contains the Radioactive Materials, Radiation Machines and

Emergency Response Groups. The Section is located within the Bureau of Preventive Services

(the Bureau), Division of Public Health Services (the Division), Department of Health and

Human Services (the Department). The Section also utilizes staff in the Public Health

Laboratories Section for Agreement State activities. The Public Health Laboratories Section is

in a separate Bureau but part of the same Division. The Department Commissioner is

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

and Section 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 New Hampshire program was on heightened oversight which

included New Hampshire developing and submitting a Program Improvement Plan (Plan) in

response to the 2004 IMPEP review, and bimonthly conference calls with the NRC to discuss

New Hampshire’s progress in implementing the Plan. This period of heightened oversight was

proceeded by a period of heightened oversight resulting from the 2001 IMPEP review. The

Plan was submitted on November 15, 2004, and revisions to the Plan were submitted on

January 5 and January 20, 2005. Conference calls were held November 23, 2004, January 25,
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 2

2005, March 30, 2005, and June 14, 2005. The Plan and minutes from the calls can be found

in Appendix C. New Hampshire’s corrective actions associated with their Plan and the current

status were reviewed in preparation for this follow-up review. 

In preparation for the follow-up review, a questionnaire addressing the one common and one

non-common performance indicators was sent to the Section on July 5, 2005. The Section

provided responses to the questionnaire on July 26, 2005. A copy of the questionnaire

responses can be found on NRC’s Agency-wide Document Access and Management System

using the Accession Number ML052270308.

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

(1) examination of the heightened oversight information including status reports; (2) review of

applicable New Hampshire statutes and regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information

from the Section’s licensing and inspection data bases; (4) interviews with staff and

management to answer questions or clarify issues. The review team evaluated the information

gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for the one common and one non-common

performance indicators and made a preliminary assessment of the State’s performance. 

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

one common performance indicator. 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 one of the five common performance indicators used in

reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State programs, Technical Staffing and Training. 

2.1 Technical Staffing and Training

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

response to the finding of satisfactory but needs improvement made during the 2004 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 Section’s staffing level and staff

turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. To evaluate

these issues, the review team examined the Section’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 2004 IMPEP review is presented below. 
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 3

Recommendation 1 

The review team recommends that the Section continue to examine and change the business

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

program. 

Current Status

A new Department reorganization went into effect on July 1, 2004. The Section is currently 

authorized for 12 positions under the new organization. These positions include the Section

Administrator, Radioactive Materials Program Manager, Radiation Machine Program Manager,

five Radiation Health Physicists (one position is for emergency response), Program Planner,

and three administrative support staff. 

Prior to August 2003, the Section had a radiochemistry laboratory and environmental

monitoring program with three positions. This program was transferred to Public Health

Laboratories Section within the Division. The Section funds most of one position (Laboratory

Scientist III) that is used to support the Section’s inspection and event response activities. The

Section also uses this position as a development position for the Radiation Health Physicists

positions. This position is currently vacant, but the position has been posted and the Division is

in the process of interviewing candidates. 

The Section Administrator position has been vacant since April 2002. On June 23, 2004, the

Division received final approval for the salary upgrade and reclassification of the Section

Administrator position to Radiation Health Physicist V. The position was posted nationally and

the Department interviewed three individuals and made one offer which was subsequently

declined. In March 2005, the Division submitted a formal request to the Division of Personnel

(DOP) to the revise the minimum qualifications to widen the applicant pool. Upon the DOP 

approving the request, the Bureau posted the position with the revised qualifications. In late

May 2005, the Radioactive Materials Program Manager was selected as the new Administrator

and the appointment went into effect on June 3, 2005. Since the individual had already been

acting in the Administrator position, the responsibilities of the Program Manager positions are

still being performed by the same individual. 

The Radiation Machine Program Manager retired in April 2004 and that position has remained

vacant. With the promotion of the Radioactive Materials Program Manager, the Bureau

requested that DOP reclassify both vacant Program Manager positions from Health Physicist II

to Radiation Health Physicist IV. Once these positions are reclassified, Division and Bureau

management indicated that they will move promptly to post the positions and fill them. If the

positions are filled by individuals internally, the vacated positions will also be posted and filled. 

Bureau management did not have a timetable for the reclassification of the Program Manager

positions, but indicated that reclassifying both positions at the same time should accelerate the

process. Bureau and Section management indicated that the new Radiation Health Physicist

series provides increased salary potential and an extended career ladder which should help

with staff hiring and retention. With the implementation of the new fees system on July 1, 2003,

all Section positions are fee supported and, as such, they are not subject to a Statewide hiring

freeze.
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 4

In September 2004, the Records Control Clerk position was filled. This position is responsible

for processing the simple renewals preparation of licensing documents and some preparation

work for revisions of regulations. 

A part-time Word Processing position was filled for approximately two months during the

current review period, but the position is currently vacant. Bureau and Section management

indicated that they plan to request that this position be converted to a full time position. This

position will be used to work on the adoption of necessary regulations for the Section.

The Section’s contracts with two individuals to support the Section’s licensing and inspection

activities expired on June 30, 2004. The contract for the individual providing licensing support

was renewed at the end of May 2005. The contract for the individual providing inspection

support is currently in the State approval process and expected to be approved in the next few

months. Bureau management indicated that although the Section had successfully operated

without contract support for eleven months, the contractors will provide backup to Section staff.

The Section reported that 2.3 FTE’s were utilized for the Radioactive Materials Program which

includes management time but excludes the effort for the radiological emergency response

program and the contract support for the licensing and inspection program. During the 2004

fiscal year, the Section reported approximately 0.2 FTE contract support for the licensing and

inspection program.

In the 2004 final IMPEP report, the review team concluded and the MRB agreed that until a 

permanent Section Administrator is hired and the Section has a period of satisfactory

performance under the new organization without contract support, the program is still fragile

and needs additional time to implement the new organization, complete new staff qualification

and stabilize program performance with permanent staff. Since the last review, the Section has

hired a new Section Administrator and operated for 11 months without contract support. During

this period, the Section has completed all inspections in accordance with NRC Inspection

Manual Chapter (MC) 2800, completed licensing actions in a timely manner, response to

incidents, qualified additional staff to perform inspections and licensing reviews (see discussion

below for details), qualified an individual to conduct sealed source and device (SS&D) reviews

(see discussion below for details), hired additional administrative support and significantly

reduced the number of overdue NRC amendments (see Section 3.1 for details). Since 2003,

the Section stopped the practice of rotating staff on a routine basis between the Radioactive

Materials and Radiation Machines programs and the Administrator and the senior Radiation

Health Physicist assign work to the staff, as necessary, providing more flexibility. 

As noted above, the Section has made significant progress with their organization and business

processes since the 2004 review. The challenge in the coming months is for the Section to fill

the Program Manager positions in a timely manner. The review team noted that Division,

Bureau and Section management is committed to fill these positions. Since 2001 when the

State was placed on heightened oversight and in addition to the bimonthly conference calls with

NRC and State management, the Administrator and Regional NRC staff have found it beneficial

to maintain routine communications (i.e., at least monthly) to discuss the status of the Section. 

Both the NRC Region and the Section plan to continue this practice indefinitely. Based on the

progress made by the Section, the program stability demonstrated over the last year and

continued management support, the review team recommended and the MRB concurred that

this recommendation be closed.
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 5

Recommendation 3

The review team recommends that the Section establish a plan for new staff to promptly

complete all training and qualification requirements in order to be qualified as independent

license reviewers and inspectors.

Current Status

As noted in the 2003 follow-up IMPEP report, the Section finalized their training and

qualification policy and supporting documentation following NRC MC 1246. At the time of the

2004 review, the two newest staff members hired in July and August 2003 respectively, had

taken several of the required courses during the past year, but had limited case work and field

time to support achieving qualifications as license reviewers and inspectors in the radioactive

materials program. The staff member hired in 2002 conducted the majority of the inspections;

however, there were several categories of license inspections that additional field work is

required for full qualifications as an inspector. The individual had not yet received any

qualifications as a license reviewer. The Section Administrator and the senior Radiation Health

Physicist were fully qualified license reviewers and inspectors. All licensing actions in New

Hampshire are signed by the Section Administrator or in his absence, the senior Radiation

Health Physicist.

During this review, the review team examined training records and interviewed Section

management and staff to determine the progress made toward achieving inspector and license

reviewer qualification needed to support the Section’s workload.

The staff member hired in 2002 is now fully qualified to independently inspect all materials

licensees in the State. This individual has also reviewed a number of licensing actions of

increased complexity. The two newest staff members are now qualified to independently

inspect non-core sealed source licenses, which comprise over half of the total licenses issued

by the Section. Both of these staff members have also reviewed a number of licensing actions

of increased complexity. The Administrator indicated that the inspector qualification process

will continue for both of the newest staff members.

With the limited number of licensees available in New Hampshire, the Section has used other

Agreement State and Federal resources to provide on the job training to accelerate the

qualification process for staff for conducting materials activities. For example, Section staff

members have accompanied Region I, Massachusetts and Maine inspectors. The Section has

also utilized Massachusetts’ expertise in SS&D reviews to qualify one staff member.

The review team concluded that the Section is following its staffing and training policy to qualify

new inspectors and license reviewers. The Section currently has two fully qualified inspectors

and two partial qualified inspectors for approximately 80 licensees, of which 19 are Priority 1, 2,

or 3. The review team concluded that this represents a sufficient number of inspectors for the

Section’s workload. The Section has four individuals to review licensing actions. Based on the 

average number of open licensing actions (20-30) in the Section, and that the senior Radiation

Health Physicist spends a majority of time on licensing, the team concluded that the Section
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 6

has a sufficient number of individuals performing licensing. Finally, the review team concluded

that the loss of a senior staff member or the Administrator would not prevent the Section from

completing inspections or licensing actions. The review team recommended and the MRB

concurred that this recommendation be closed.

Recommendation 4

The review team recommends that the Section modify their training and qualification program to

include requirements for individuals to evaluate SS&D application and sign the registration

sheet.

Current Status

The review team noted that the Section’s training and qualification plan includes requirements

for an individual to evaluate SS&D applications and sign the registry form. Since 1986, the

Section has issued three SS&D registry sheets, the most recent in 2003 for a static elimination

device. The review team concluded that the requirements in the training and qualification plan

for an SS&D reviewer are commensurate with scope of the Section’s SS&D activities. 

Currently, the State has one manufacturer with one registry sheet. There were no requests

since the 2004 review to amend the registry sheet.

As noted in the 2004 final IMPEP report, the Section Administrator was the only individual in the

Section to meet the minimum requirements for an SS&D reviewer. The Section implemented

their SS&D training and qualification plan and qualified a second individual. The second

individual qualified was the staff member hired in 2002 who is also a licensed metallurgical

engineer. This individual participated in the State’s review of the 2003 registry sheet, but also

received training from the SS&D staff at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in various

registry applications. The review team noted documentation from the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts that the Section staff member met the qualifications for an SS&D reviewer. The

Section Administrator also indicated that the Section would likely request the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts to assist in future reviews of SS&D applications.

With the modification of the Section’s training and qualification program to include requirements

for individuals to evaluate SS&D application and sign the registration sheets and the

qualification of second individual, the review team recommended and the MRB concurred that

this recommendation be closed.

The review team concluded that the New Hampshire program has made significant progress

with their staffing and training since the 2001 IMPEP review which resulted in the program

being placed on heightened oversight. The Section has a new fee system with a dedicated

fund that provides fiscal stability; the Radiation Health Physicist series was expanded and

salaries increased to enhance retention, promotional opportunities and recruitment; a

permanent Administrator was appointed, the training and qualification plan for staff was

finalized, the Section stopped the practice of rotating staff on a routine basis between the

Radioactive Materials and Radiation Machines programs and work is now assigned to provide

more flexibility and the Section has sufficient qualified staff to meet its licensing and inspection

workloads. Since the 2004 review, the Section demonstrated stabile program performance 

through its ability to maintain routine operations and train new staff without contract support.
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 7

The remaining challenge for the program is the reclassification and filling the two vacant

Program Manager positions. The Division and Bureau’s management indicated their continued

involvement with the Program and support to fill all remaining vacancies in the Section. 

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

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

and Training, be changed from satisfactory, but needs improvement to satisfactory.

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, “Compatibility Requirements.” 

3.1 Compatibility Requirements

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 Section. The review team did not identify any legislative changes affecting

the radiation control program since the last 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 2004 IMPEP review

recommendation is presented below.

Recommendation 2

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

At the time of the June 21-25, 2004 IMPEP review, the State had twelve regulations overdue for

adoption. The Section had been overdue in adopting regulations since the 2001 IMPEP review

and the continued backlog in adopting regulations noted during the 2004 review was one factor

that caused the program to remain on heightened oversight. Since the 2004 review the Section

management, backed by support from the Bureau, has dedicated considerable staff time to

bringing the State’s rules up to date and compatible with NRC’s rules. The Section’s

management indicated that this commitment will continue into the future and in addition has a
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 8

staffing plan to include a staff position dedicated to regulation development. Bureau and

Section management indicated that they are preparing a proposal to upgrade a current parttime clerical position in the Section to a full time position that would assist the Section’s

professional staff member assigned to work on future regulation development. 

At the time of the on-site review, the State had drafted rules to cover the twelve overdue

regulations and one additional regulation that came due for State adoption following the 2004

IMPEP review. All rules had been submitted to the NRC for review and had been through a

public comment period. There were five rules that have been promulgated in final and were

effective in the State. Eight more rules were in proposed form waiting for legal approval in the

State by the State’s Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR). The Section

believed that they would be promulgated in final and effective within 60 days. The Section

committed to submitting these rules into the NRC for review in their final form as required by the

Office of State and Tribal Programs Procedure SA-201. The review team recommended and

the MRB concurred that this recommendation be closed.

At the time of the on-site review, the following seven amendments were in proposed form and

awaiting JLCAR approval in the State:

• “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. 

• “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. 

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

150 amendments (63 FR 1890 and 63 FR 13773) was due for adoption on February 12,

2001.

• “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. 

• “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. 

• “Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct

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

effective February 16, 2001. 

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

became effective April 5, 2002. 

During the MRB the State presented evidence that all of these rules had been approved by the

JLCAR and were now effective.
New Hampshire Follow-Up Final Report Page 9

The following amendments will become due during the next IMPEP review period and are

included here to assist the Section in including them in future rulemakings or by adopting

alternate generic legally binding requirements:

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

for State adoption on November 24, 2005.

• “Financial Assurance for Materials Licensees,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70 (68 FR 57327)

that is due for State adoption on December 3, 2006.

• “Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards and Other Transportation

Safety Amendments,” 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (69 FR 3697) that is due for State

adoption on October 1, 2007. 

Based on the information at the time of the on-site review, the review team initially

recommended that the unsatisfactory rating from the 2004 IMPEP be changed to satisfactory,

but needs improvement. Due to the information presented at the MRB by the State, in regard

to the finalization of all overdue regulations, the review team recommended and the MRB

concurred, that the unsatisfactory rating from the 2004 IMPEP be changed to satisfactory. 

4.0 SUMMARY

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

indicators, Technical Staffing and Training and Compatibility Requirements. The review team

noted that the Section has made significant progress since the last review and has shown

continued commitment by the Division to support the Section in addressing deficiencies. 

Accordingly, the follow-up review team recommended and the MRB concurred in finding the

New Hampshire Agreement State Program to be adequate to protect public health and safety

and compatible with NRC's program. The review team recommended and the MRB concurred

that the period of Heightened Oversight be discontinued. However, to ensure continued

program success in the program, the review team recommended and the MRB concurred that a

periodic management meeting be conducted on an annual basis until the next full IMPEP

review. In addition, the MRB directed that a teleconference be conducted between the NRC

and the New Hampshire program six months from the date of the MRB to monitor the progress

on filling the remaining staff vacancies as well as overall program status. Based on the results

of the follow-up IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately three years.

Based on the results of this review, there are no new recommendations and all

recommendations from the 2004 IMPEP report are closed.
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENT

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B New Hampshire Organization Charts

Appendix C Heightened Oversight Program Correspondence

Appendix D Periodic Meeting Summary

Attachment September 26, 2005, Letter from Dennis O’Dowd

New Hampshire’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

John Zabko, STP Team Leader

Compatibility Requirements

Duncan White, RI Technical Staffing and Training

Periodic Meeting
APPENDIX B

NEW HAMPSHIRE

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

ADAMS: ML052270388
APPENDIX C

HEIGHTENED OVERSIGHT PROGRAM CORRESPONDENCE

Minutes of Bimonthly Conference Calls:

1. November 23, 2004 Minutes (ML043290393)

2. January 25, 2005 Minutes (ML050460264)

3. March 30, 2005 Minutes (ML050980175)

4. June 14, 2005 Minutes (ML051860222)

Letters from/to New Hampshire:

1. November 15, 2004 Letter from Alice Bruning to Paul Lohaus with Program

Improvement Plan (ML043290393)

2. December 9, 2004 Letter from Paul Lohaus to Alice Bruning (ML043440058)

3. January 5, 2005 Letter from Alice Bruning to Paul Lohaus with Detailed Completion

Dates for Overdue NRC Amendments (ML050470384)

4. January 20, 2005 Letter from Alice Bruning to Paul Lohaus with Updated Program

Improvement Plan (ML050470472)

5. March 22, 2005 Letter from Alice Bruning to Paul Lohaus (ML050820191)

6. May 31, 2005 Letter from Alice Bruning to Paul Lohaus (ML051650150)
APPENDIX D

PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY

A periodic meeting was held with the New Hampshire Program Administrator by John Zabko,

Team Leader, and Duncan White, Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO), during the

follow-up review pursuant to the Office of State and Tribal Programs (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 2004 Report

See Sections 2.1 and 3.1 for details.

Program Strengths and/or Weaknesses

The Administrator indicated that the program’s strength is its staff. Nearly all staff have

advanced degrees and diverse experience that is an asset to the program. The biggest

challenge to the Section in the near future will be reclassifying the Supervisory positions and

filling the vacancies.

Feedback on NRC’s Program

The Administrator expressed appreciation for NRC staff’s assistance with regard to a number of

issues raised over the past year.

Status of Program Activities

A detailed discussion of the program’s activities over the last year in staffing and training and

compatibility requirements can be found in Sections 2.1 and 3.1, respectively, of the follow-up

review report.

The Section is funded primarily through fees that are placed in a dedicated account for both

radioactive materials and machines. The Administrator reported that the Section is currently

operating with a surplus. The State’s fees structure is roughly the same as those fees charged

by other New England States.

The Administrator indicated that materials inspections are performed in accordance with NRC

guidance in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (MC) 2800. There are currently no overdue

inspections and all inspections performed over the last year have been performed timely. NRC

staff reviewed the Section’s inspection tracking database and confirmed the status of the

inspection program. Inspector accompaniments are being conducted of inspectors as required. 

Reciprocity inspections are being performed in accordance with NRC MC 1220.

At the time of the review, the Section had 26 open licensing actions. Twenty-two of the actions

are less than six months old. The remaining four actions are less than a year old. All actions

were assigned for review and are in various stages of review. The Administrator noted that the

Section received a termination request from a thorium processor and that the licensing
Periodic Meeting Summary Page D.2

decommissioning plan is currently under review. Once the contractor for the individual who

performs inspections for the Section is approved, the Administrator anticipates that this

individual will lead the Section’s inspections efforts.

The State has one manufacturer with one active sealed source and device registration. There

have been no amendment requests from the manufacturer since the 2004 review. The

Administrator indicated that there are two registry sheets that need to be placed on inactive

status. These sheets were not completed due to other higher priority items.

Impact of NRC Program Changes

The NRC representatives discussed materials security issues, Federal legislation that could

modify the Atomic Energy Act, general licensing petition, changes in the Commission Office,

new management in Region I and the retirement of the STP Director.

Internal Program Audits and Self-Assessments

The Administrator reported that currently no self-assessments were being performed. Weekly

meetings are held with the Bureau Chief to discuss program issues. The Administrator

indicated that he has access to the various databases and reviews them routinely to ensure

those program activities are being performed. 

Status of Allegations Previously Referred

No allegations were referred to the Section by Region I since the 2004 review.

Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) Reporting

Since the last review, there have been no reportable events made by the State. The

Administrator indicated that event notifications received by the Section have involved medical

waste in the trash or naturally occurring radioactive material. A general discussion was held

concerning the importance of maintaining current information in NMED.

Radiation Advisory Committee

The Administrator noted that the Committee continues to be supportive of the Section. The

Committee usually meets on a quarterly basis and the Administrator attends the meetings and

provides status briefing of the Section’s activities. There is current one vacancy on the Board.

The Board will next meet on August 12, 2005 with the Commissioner of the Department to

discuss their 2004 annual report.
ATTACHMENT

September 26, 2005, Letter from Mr. Dennis O’Dowd

New Hampshire’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 

ADAMS: ML052800228