February 5, 2003

Dora Ann Mills, M.D., M.P.H.

Director

Maine Bureau of Health

Department of Human Services

Key Plaza, 8th Floor

286 Water Street

Augusta, ME 04333-0011

Dear Dr. Mills:

On January 22, 2003, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed

final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Maine

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Maine program adequate to protect public

health and safety and compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) program. 

No recommendations were made by the review team.

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

four years.

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

appreciate your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the excellence in

program administration demonstrated by your staff as is reflected in the team’s findings. I look

forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Jay Hyland, PE

Division of Health Engineering

Pearce O’Kelley, SC

OAS Liaison to the MRB
Dora Ann Mills, M.D.,M.P.H., February 5, 2003

Director

Department of Human Services

Bureau of Health

286 Water Street

Key Bank Plaza, 8th Floor

Augusta, ME 04333-0011

Dear Dr. Mills:

On January 22, 2003, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed

final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Maine

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Maine program adequate to protect public

health and safety and compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) program. 

No recommendations were made by the review team.

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

four years.

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

appreciate your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the excellence in

program administration demonstrated by your staff as is reflected in the team’s findings. I look

forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated bcc: Chairman Meserve

Commissioner Dicus

cc: Jay Hyland, PE Commission Diaz

Division of Health Engineering Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

Pearce O’Kelley, SC

OAS Liaison to the MRB

Distribution: See next page

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\IMPEP\2003 ME Final Report and Letter.wpd

 ADAMS ACCESSION #ML030290578

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 RIV:SAO STP:DD STP:D DEDMRS

NAME MLMcLean:gd JMPiccone PLohaus CPaperiello

DATE 1/24/03 1/24/03 1/29/03 02/05/03

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
 - 2 -

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP01) PDR (YES/)

KSchneider, STP 

LRakovan, STP

AMauer, STP

LCox, NC

DWhite, RI

DCool, NMSS/IMNS 

RStruckmeyer, NMSS/IMNS 

JLieberman, OGC

STreby, OGC

FCameron, OGC 

ISchoenfeld, EDO

TCombs, OCA (2 copies)

Maine File
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF MAINE AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

October 29 - November 1, 2002

 FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ATTACHMENT 1
Maine Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Maine Agreement State program. The

review was conducted during the period October 29 - November 1, 2002, by a review team

consisting of technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the

Agreement State of North Carolina. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The review

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

Performance Evaluation Program and Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy,"

published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1997, and the November 5, 1999, NRC

Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." 

Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of September 18, 1998 to October

29, 2002, were discussed with Maine management on November 1, 2002.

A draft of this report was issued to Maine for factual comment on November 25, 2002. The

State responded by letter dated December 30, 2002. The Management Review Board (MRB)

met on January 22, 2003 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Maine

radiation control program was adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible

with NRC’s program.

The Maine Agreement State program is administered by the Division of Health Engineering

(the Division), Radiation Control Program (the Program). The Program Manager reports to the

Division Director. The Bureau of Health located in the State Department of Human Services

(the Department), is the designated radiation control agency (See Section 3.3). Organization

charts are included in Appendix B. At the time of the review, the Maine Agreement State

program regulated 130 specific licenses authorizing Agreement and non-AEA materials. The

review focused on the materials program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of

Maine. 

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

performance indicators was sent to the Program on August 5, 2002. The Program provided a

response to the questionnaire on October 3, 2002. During the review, the review team

identified an area in the questionnaire response that needed to be modified. The State

provided an amended questionnaire response on November 20, 2002. A copy of the final

questionnaire response can be found on NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and

Management System using the Accession Number ML023250543.

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination of

Maine’s responses to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Maine statutes and

regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the radiation control program licensing

and inspection data base; (4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5)

field accompaniments of one Program inspector; and (6) interviews with staff and management

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

gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for each common and applicable

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

Agreement State program’s performance.

Section 2 below discusses the State’s actions in response to recommendations made following

the previous IMPEP review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance
Maine Final Report Page 2

indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable

non-common performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings. 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on September 18, 1998, five

recommendations were made and transmitted to Dr. Dora A. Mills, Director, Bureau of Health

and State Health Officer, on December 15, 1998. The team’s review of the current status of

the recommendations are as follows:

1. The review team recommends that the State perform routine inspections at required

frequencies. (Section 3.1).

Current Status: The review team found that with only a few exceptions, the Program

inspected core licensees at the required frequency. This recommendation is closed.

2. The review team recommends that initial inspections of licensees be performed within 6

months of license issuance or within 6 months of the licensee’s receipt of material and

commencement of operations, consistent with IMC 2800. (Section 3.1).

Current Status: The review team found that the Program inspected all new licensees

within six months of license issuance or within six months of the licensee’s receipt of

material and commencement of operations. All 18 new licenses issued during the

review period were reviewed and found to be inspected and consistent with NRC

Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800 criteria. This recommendation is closed.

3. The review team recommends that the program consistently document and perform

appropriate follow-up of all incidents. (Section 3.5).

Current Status: The review team found that the Program’s response to incidents was

complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and well-coordinated, and

the level of effort was commensurate with the health and safety significance. 

Documentation related to an incident is placed in the appropriate license file. This

recommendation is closed.

4. The review team recommends that the Program’s procedures be reviewed and updated

for handling allegations and other privacy information to reflect Department of Health

policy or State laws specific to Maine. (Section 3.5).

Current Status: The review team noted that Maine’s Freedom of Access law requires

that all public documents be made available for inspection and copying. The State

makes every effort to protect an alleger’s identity, but it cannot be guaranteed. This

recommendation is closed.

5. The review team recommends that the State expedite promulgation of the compatibility

related regulations. (Section 4.1.2).

Current Status: Since the last review, the Program has adopted 28 NRC amendments

in three rulemaking packages. There are currently three NRC amendments that have
Maine Final Report Page 3

not been adopted by the Program. However, based on NRC policy, these amendments

are not overdue. The Program plans to adopt NRC rules on an annual basis. This

recommendation is closed.

During the 1998 review, two suggestions were made for the Program to consider. The review

team determined that the Program considered the suggestions and took appropriate actions. 

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) Technical Staffing and

Training; (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program; (3) Technical Quality of Inspections; 

(4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations. 

3.1 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Program’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 Program’s questionnaire responses relative to this

indicator, interviewed Program management and staff, reviewed job descriptions and training

records, and considered any possible workload backlogs.

Program staffing was stable over the review period. Due to a low turnover rate, the staff

consists of experienced personnel. The radioactive materials program has three technical

positions, including the Program Manager. The Program has one individual, the Low-Level

Waste Inspector, assigned to the decommissioning activities at the Maine Yankee reactor site,

who is also being cross trained in the radioactive materials program. In addition, the Program

has two X-ray staff members and two individuals assigned to the radon program. The

Program currently has no vacant positions. The review team noted that the Program had

stable funding during the review period due to dedicated revenue from licensee fees. 

Training and qualification requirements for Program staff are established in a procedure which

sets forth essentially the same training and qualification recommendations detailed in NRC’s

IMC 1246. The staff are well trained and qualified from an education and experience 

standpoint. All have Bachelor’s degrees in the sciences, and the Program Manager is also a

professional engineer. Inspector requirements include NRC training courses, when available,

or equivalents.

All technical staff members have taken the NRC courses deemed appropriate for their tasks.

The training records demonstrate that Program management is committed to continual training

for the staff. The review team concluded that the Program has a well balanced staff, and a

sufficient number of trained personnel to carry out regulatory duties. 

The Advisory Committee on Radiation of the State of Maine, as constituted under the law, acts

in a purely advisory role for the Program. Meetings of the committee are infrequent. 

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

that Maine’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, is

satisfactory.
Maine Final Report Page 4

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on five factors in reviewing the status of the material inspection

program: inspection frequency, overdue inspections, initial inspections of new licensees,

timely dispatch of inspection findings to licensees, and the performance of reciprocity

inspections. The review team’s evaluation is based on the Program’s questionnaire responses

relative to this indicator, data gathered independently from the Program’s licensing and

inspection data tracking system, the examination of complete licensing and inspection

casework, and interviews with managers and staff.

The team's review of the Program’s inspection priorities verified that inspection frequencies for

various types of Maine material licenses are generally the same as those listed in NRC IMC

2800. However, there are some categories of licenses that were assigned inspection priority

codes that prescribe a more frequent inspection schedule than those currently prescribed in

NRC IMC 2800. The Program recently implemented the revised inspection priorities that are

currently part of the pilot program under a temporary instruction involving NRC IMC 2800. The

team believes that these changes in priority are acceptable, yet additional changes may be

necessary once NRC officially revises their inspection priorities.

In their response to the questionnaire, the Program indicated that there were currently no

inspections of core licensees currently overdue by more than 25 percent of the NRC

frequency. This information was verified during the inspection casework reviews and the

review of the monthly generated “inspections due” list provided to the team. 

The Program conducted a total of 19 inspections of its eight core licensees during the review

period. The review team noted that four of these inspections were conducted overdue during

the review period, ranging from four days to two months overdue. During the review period,

there were no overdue inspections of non-core licenses. The review team also evaluated the

Program’s initial inspections. The team noted that the Program conducted initial inspections in

accordance with NRC IMC 2800 guidelines.

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was also evaluated during the inspection

file review. The Program has an effective and efficient process which ensures that inspection

findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner. The Program’s goal is to complete

each inspection report and deliver the notice of violation to the licensee within 30 days. The

licensee is then instructed to respond within 20 working days. Of the eight core licensee files

reviewed only two inspection reports exceeded the 30 day goal. 

During the review period, the Program granted 14 core reciprocity licenses. The Program

exceeded the 20 percent criteria prescribed in NRC IMC 1220 by inspecting six licensees. In

addition, the Program inspected 20 percent of all other categories of reciprocity licensees. 

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

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

Program, is satisfactory.
Maine Final Report Page 5

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and inspection field

notes and interviewed inspectors for a total of 13 inspections conducted during the review

period, including inspections of all eight core radioactive materials licensees. The casework

included both of the Program’s fully trained materials inspectors, and covered inspections of

various types as follows: industrial radiography, academic broad scope, medical broad scope,

medical institution with QMP, nuclear pharmacy, and research & development. In addition, two

inspection reports of non-core licensees performed by the newest inspector were reviewed by

the team. Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed for completeness and

adequacy with case-specific comments. 

Based on the casework file reviews, the review team found that routine inspections covered all

aspects of the licensee’s radiation protection program. The inspection reports were thorough,

complete, consistent, and of high quality, with sufficient documentation to ensure that

licensee’s performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. The documentation

adequately supported the cited violations. Exit interviews were held with appropriate licensee

personnel. Team inspections were performed when appropriate and for training purposes.

The review team found that routine inspections adequately cover the licensee's radiation

protection program, include a written summary of the scope of the licensed activities and

categorize violations into severity levels which can later be used for escalated enforcement, if

necessary. Part B of the State of Maine “Rules Relating to Radiation Protection,” dated

August 1, 2002, explains the initiation of enforcement actions. Three reciprocity enforcement

files were reviewed. The team found that this procedure has led to improved licensee

performance in regard to health and safety compliance through possible civil penalty,

suspension of operations, or other appropriate actions.

The Program Manager attempts to conduct supervisory accompaniments of material inspectors

once a year. During this review period, there was only one recent documented

accompaniment. The review team discussed this issue with the Program Manager, and he

stated that he generally accompanies the inspectors on scrap yard incidents but not on routine

inspections. In the State’s December 30, 2002 response to the draft IMPEP report, additional

information was provided on the management accompaniments performed during the review

period. The review team found that the number of supervisory accompaniments was

acceptable. 

The review team accompanied one Program inspector on May 24, 2001 during an inspection

at a medical institution licensed for diagnostic nuclear medicine and radiopharmaceutical

therapy and is identified in Appendix C. During the accompaniment, the inspector

demonstrated appropriate performance-based inspection techniques and knowledge of the

regulations. The inspector was well prepared and thorough in his review of the licensee's

radiation safety program. The inspection was adequate to assess radiological health and

safety at the licensed facility.

The Program has an adequate number and types of survey meters to support the current

inspection program as well as for responding to incidents and emergency conditions. The
Maine Final Report Page 6

Program has contractors who calibrate their survey instruments on an annual basis. 

Appropriate documentation of calibrated survey instruments such as GM meters, scintillation

detectors, ion chambers, and micro-R meters was provided. Air monitoring equipment as well

as prepared emergency field kits are also available for emergency use. Contamination wipes

are primarily evaluated at the agency’s onsite laboratory with a liquid scintillation detector. The

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Domestic Preparedness and Response, has recently

approved funding through a Weapons of Mass Destruction grant, for the Program to procure

sophisticated detection instruments. The Program plans to distribute the instruments to

various law enforcement agencies and regional emergency response personnel, as well as

maintain a sufficient quantity for the Program’s use. The instruments which will remain on site

include two teletectors, one Exploranium with added neutron detection capability, and six belt

detectors.

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

that Maine’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, is

satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team interviewed license reviewers, evaluated the licensing process, and examined

licensing casework for 17 specific licenses. Licensing actions were reviewed for

completeness, consistency, proper radioisotopes and quantities, qualifications of authorized

users, adequate facilities and equipment, adherence to good health physics practices, financial

assurance, operating and emergency procedures, appropriateness of the license conditions,

and overall technical quality. The casework files were also reviewed for timeliness, use of

appropriate deficiency letters and cover letters, reference to appropriate regulations, product

certifications, supporting documentation, consideration of enforcement history, pre-licensing

visits, supervisory review as indicated, and proper signatures. The files were checked for

retention of necessary documents and supporting data.

The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions

which were completed during the review period. The cross-section sampling focused on the

new licenses, amendments, renewals, and licenses terminated during the review period. The

sampling included the following types: broad scope research and development, general

license distribution, manufacturing and distribution, medical institution - QMP required, medical

broad scope, private practice, research and development, nuclear pharmacy, industrial

radiography, portable gauge, self-shielded irradiator and veterinary. Licensing actions

reviewed included five new, three renewals, six amendments and three termination files. A

listing of the casework licenses evaluated with case specific comments can be found in

Appendix D.

Overall, the review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent,

and of high quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. License tie-down

conditions were stated clearly, backed by information contained in the file, and inspectable. 

The licensee’s compliance history was taken into account when reviewing renewal applications

and amendments. The exemptions noted in the questionnaire responses were determined to

be appropriate and well documented by license conditions.
Maine Final Report Page 7

Licensing actions are assigned to one of two license reviewers along with a priority based on

the type of action. Once the reviewer completes the action, the other reviewer or the Program

Manager does a second review of the action. An internally developed checklist specific to the

type of license is completed by the initial reviewer and signed by the second reviewer for new,

renewal and termination licensing actions. The status of all licensing actions are tracked on a

database. The Program generates licenses and correspondence with standardized conditions

and formats. As of September 2000, both license reviewers were given full signature authority

by the Program Manager. The Program Manager continues to review approximately 10% of all

licensing actions. The Program issues licenses for a five-year period under a timely renewal

system, utilizes licensing guides based on NRC licensing guides (NUREG 1556 series) as

appropriate, uses standard licensing conditions, and issues a complete license for each

licensing action. During the review period, the Program streamlined their licensing process to

make it more risk informed and performance based, and reduce the amount of information

needed to support an application. The streamlined process has significantly reduced the

amount of time required by Program staff to review an application.

Since July 2000, the Program has been certifying radiographers in accordance with Part E of

the State’s regulations. The Program administers the radiographer certification examination

developed by the Texas Department of Health. Since the inception of the certification process, 

the Program has certified a total of 36 individuals including radiographers from Canada.

A review of termination actions taken over the review period showed that most terminations

were for licensees possessing only sealed sources. A notable exception was the termination

of a licensee authorized to use thorium for the manufacturing of tungsten wire and rods. The

review team found that terminated licensing actions were well documented, showing

appropriate transfer records or appropriate disposal methods and records, confirmatory

surveys, and survey records. In discussions with Program staff, the review team noted that

there were no major decommissioning efforts underway with regard to Agreement material in

Maine.

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

that Maine's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions,

is satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Program’s actions in responding to incidents, the review

team examined the Program’s responses to the questionnaire relative to this indicator,

reviewed the incident reports for Maine in NMED against those contained in the Program’s

files, and evaluated reports and supporting documentation for five incidents. A list of the

incident casework examined with case-specific comments is included in Appendix E. The

review team also reviewed the Program’s response to two allegations involving radioactive

material. One allegation was referred to the State by the NRC during the review period. 

The incidents selected for review included the following event categories: medical event,

radiation overexposure, contamination event, leaking sealed sources, and equipment

problems. The review team found that the Program’s response to incidents was complete and
Maine Final Report Page 8

comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and well-coordinated, and the level of effort

was commensurate with the health and safety significance. The Program dispatched

inspectors for onsite investigations when appropriate, and took suitable enforcement and

follow-up actions. 

The responsibility for initial response and follow-up actions to materials incidents may be

assigned to one of two materials inspectors. Upon receipt, staff reviews the report, decides on

the appropriate response, and gives the report a unique number. Documentation related to

an incident is placed in the appropriate license file. 

The Program’s incident procedure references the NRC’s “Handbook on Nuclear Material Event

Reporting in the Agreement States” reporting requirements for incidents. In addition, events

not meeting the reporting criteria in the NMED handbook are entered into the database for

tracking purposes. The review team identified four incidents in NMED for Maine during the

review period. The review team noted that all events (requiring 24 hour notification) and

routine and/or event updates (requiring 30-day notification) were reported to the NMED. 

However, it was noted that the NMED data reports were missing information, (e.g., the device

manufacturer’s name, the device model and source serial number, etc.); although, in most

cases the information was included in the NMED abstract. During the review, the individual

responsible for entering the information into NMED contacted INEEL to resolve the issue, and

to add the missing information and close the events. It was determined that the new NMED

software is not compatible with the computers that are on the State’s LAN system. After

installing the software on a stand-alone computer, the Program was able to complete the

NMED required fields. 

In evaluating the effectiveness of Maine's actions responding to allegations, the review team

examined the Program’s questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, and the Program’s

allegation procedure. The casework for two allegations were reviewed. One allegation was

referred to the State by the NRC and one was reported directly to the State. The Program

evaluates each allegation and determines the proper level of response. The review of the

casework and the files indicated that the Program took prompt and appropriate action in

response to the concerns raised. Each of the allegations reviewed were appropriately closed,

and the allegers were informed of the results when possible. There were no performance

issues identified from the review of the casework documentation. 

The review team noted that Maine’s Freedom of Access law requires that all public documents

be made available for inspection and copying. The State makes every effort to protect an

alleger’s identity, but it cannot be guaranteed. 

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

that Maine's performance with respect to the indicator, Response to Incidents and Allegations,

is satisfactory.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement

State programs: (1) Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility; (2) Sealed
Maine Final Report Page 9

Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; 

and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. Maine’s Agreement does not authorize uranium recovery

or low-level radioactive waste disposal activities, so only the first two non-common

performance indicators were applicable to this review.

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation 

In addition to their response to the questionnaire, the Program provided the review team with

the opportunity to review copies of legislation that effect the radiation control program. The

current effective statutory authority for the Program is contained in the Maine Radiation

Protection Statutes in 22 MRSA § 661-690. The Radiation Control Program is designated as

the State's radiation control agency. The review team noted that no legislation affecting the

Program was passed during the review period.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility 

The Maine Regulations for Control of Radiation, found in Maine Administrative Rules 10-144A

CMR 220, apply to all ionizing radiation. Maine requires a license for possession and use of all

radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such as radium, and acceleratorproduced radionuclides. Maine also requires registration of all equipment designed to produce

x-rays or other ionizing radiation.

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

process takes approximately four months after filing the draft rule with the Secretary of State. 

Prior to filing with the Secretary of State, the draft rule is reviewed by Department of Human

Services (the Department) management, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Governor’s

Office. When an acceptable draft proposed revision to a rule has been prepared, it is sent to

the Secretary of State, the public, the NRC, other agencies, and all potentially impacted

licensees and registrants for comment. The Secretary of State announces a public

meeting/hearing period for the proposed revision to the rule. Comments are considered and

incorporated as appropriate before the regulations are finalized. After responding to

comments, the Program forwards the proposed revision to the rule with the addressed

comments to the Commissioner, the Department, and Attorney General’s Office for final

approval. The Commissioner and the Attorney General sign the final regulations. The State

can adopt other agency’s regulations by reference and has the authority to issue legally

binding requirements (e.g., license conditions) in lieu of regulations until compatible regulations

become effective.

The review team evaluated the Program’s responses to the questionnaire, reviewed the status

of regulations required to be adopted by the State under the Commission’s adequacy and

compatibility policy and verified the adoption of regulations with data obtained from the Office

of State and Tribal Program’s (STP) State Regulation Status Data Sheet. Since the previous

IMPEP review, the Program adopted 28 amendments in three rule packages that became

effective in August 1999, August 2001, and August 2002. The program plans to adopt NRC

amendments on an annual basis.
Maine Final Report Page 10

Current NRC policy requires that Agreement States adopt certain equivalent regulations or

legally binding requirements no later than three years after they become effective. The review

team found that the Program currently has no overdue NRC amendments.

The Program will need to address the following three regulations in upcoming rulemakings or

by adopting alternate legally binding requirements:

! “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. The Program has requested that NRC review the State’s

regulations for compatibility with this amendment.

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

became effective April 5, 2002. The Program has drafted regulations for this

amendment and submitted them to NRC for review.

! “Medical Use of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR 20, 32, and 35 amendments (67 FR

20249) that became effective October 24, 2002. The Program has drafted regulations

for this amendment and submitted them to the NRC for review.

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

Maine’s performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required

for Compatibility, is satisfactory.

4.2 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program

During the review period, no SS&D certificates were issued by the program and there are

currently no manufacturers of sealed sources or devices in the State. The State, however,

does not wish to relinquish the authority to regulate SS&D manufacturers in the future. The

State has committed to have a program in place prior to performing evaluations. Accordingly,

the review team did not review this indicator.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, Maine’s performance was found to be satisfactory for all

six performance indicators. Accordingly, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

in finding the Maine Agreement State program to be adequate to protect public health and

safety and compatible with NRC's program. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review,

the review team recommended and the MRB concurred that the next full review should be in

approximately four years. No recommendations were made by the review team.
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Maine Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment December 30, 2002 letter from Dora Ann Mills

Maine’s Response to the Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Linda McLean, Region IV Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Response to Incidents and Allegations

Duncan White, Region I Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

Legislation and Program Elements Required for

Compatibility

Inspector Accompaniment

Lee Cox, North Carolina Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections
APPENDIX B

MAINE ORGANIZATION CHARTS

ML023290193




Attachment

December 30, 2002 Letter from Dora Ann Mills

Maine’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report

(ML030100367)