UNITED STATES 

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 REGION I 

 2100 RENAISSANCE BOULEVARD, SUITE 100 

 KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-2713

June 7, 2013 

Beverly Anderson, Interim Director 

Radiation Control Program 

Department of Public Health 

Schrafft Center, Suite 1M2A 

529 Main Street 

Charlestown, MA 02129 

Dear Ms. Anderson: 

A periodic meeting was held with you and your staff on April 10, 2013. The purpose of the 

meeting was to review and discuss the status of Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s 

Agreement State Program. The NRC was represented by Daniel Collins, Michelle Beardsley, 

and me. 

I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions that 

will be taken as a result of this meeting. If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately 

summarize the meeting discussion, or have any additional remarks about the meeting in 

general, please contact me at (610) 337-5371, or email to Donna.Janda@nrc.gov to discuss 

your comments. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

Donna M. Janda 

Regional State Agreements Officer 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

Enclosure: As stated 

 
June 7, 2013 

Beverly Anderson, Interim Director 

Radiation Control Program 

Department of Public Health 

Schrafft Center, Suite 1M2A 

529 Main Street 

Charlestown, MA 02129 

Dear Ms. Anderson: 

A periodic meeting was held with you and your staff on April 10, 2013. The purpose of the 

meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Massachusetts Department of Public 

Health’s Agreement State Program. The NRC was represented by Daniel Collins, Michelle 

Beardsley, and me. 

I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions that 

will be taken as a result of the meeting. If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately 

summarize the meeting discussion, or have any additional remarks about the meeting in 

general, please contact me at (610) 337-5371, or email to Donna.Janda@nrc.gov to discuss 

your comments. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

Donna M. Janda 

Regional State Agreements Officer 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

Enclosure: As stated 

Distribution: 

D. White, FSME 

M. Beardsley, FSME 

L. Dimmick, FSME 

K. Meyer, FSME 

R. Lorson, RI 

D. Collins, RI 

SUNSI Review Complete: DMJ (Reviewer=s Initials) 

DOCUMENT NAME: S:\State Agreement Files\Massachusetts\MASSACHUSETTS PERIODIC MEETING 

SUMMARY 4-10-13.docx 

After declaring this document AAn Official Agency Record@ it will be released to the Public. 

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy 

with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy ML13162A810 

OFFICE RI:DNMS E 

NAME DJanda/dmj 

DATE 06/07/13 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR 

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 

DATE OF MEETING: April 10, 2013 

NRC Attendees Massachusetts Department of Public Health Attendees 

Daniel Collins, Deputy Director, 

DNMS, Region I 

Suzanne Condon, Associate Commissioner/ Director, 

Bureau of Environmental Health 

Donna Janda, RSAO, Region I Beverly Anderson, Interim Director, Radiation Control 

Program (RCP) 

Michelle Beardsley, Health 

Physicist, FSME 

Joshua Daehler, Materials Supervisor, RCP 

 Kenath Traegde, RCP 

 Michael Whalen, RCP 

DISCUSSION: 

During the 2010 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the 

Massachusetts Agreement State Program (the Program), the review team found the 

Commonwealth’s performance satisfactory for four performance indicators: Technical Quality of 

Inspections, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, Technical Quality of Incidents and 

Allegations, and Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program; and satisfactory, but needs 

improvement, for three performance indicators: Technical Staffing and Training, Status of 

Materials Inspection Program, and Compatibility Requirements. Three recommendations were 

made by the IMPEP review team, and five recommendations were carried over from the 2002 

and 2006 IMPEP reviews. On September 20, 2010, the Management Review Board (MRB) met 

to consider the proposed final IMPEP report on the Massachusetts Agreement State Program. 

The MRB found the Program adequate to protect public health and safety, but needs 

improvement, and compatible with NRC’s program. The MRB directed NRC staff to initiate a 

period of monitoring, requested that calls between the Massachusetts DPH and NRC staffs be 

conducted quarterly, and directed that a periodic meeting take place approximately one year 

from the 2010 IMPEP review. The periodic meeting was held with the Massachusetts DPH on 

August 1, 2011. 

During the MRB held on November 21, 2011, to discuss the results of the August 2011 periodic 

meeting, the MRB determined that the Commonwealth had made significant progress in 

addressing the recommendations that were made during the 2010 IMPEP review and the open 

recommendations from previous IMPEP reviews. Based on this information, the MRB 

determined that the period of monitoring should be discontinued, a periodic meeting should be 

held in approximately 18 months, and the next IMPEP review should be conducted as 

scheduled in fiscal year 2014 (tentatively July 2014.) 

The following is a status summary of the eight recommendations that were identified in the 2010 

Massachusetts final IMPEP report: 

1. The review team recommended that the Commonwealth pursue adequate funding to 

support and implement the staffing plan which is needed to meet current program 

demands as well as the projected increase in workload. (Carryover from the 2006 

IMPEP review) 
MA Periodic Meeting Summary 2 

Status: The Program is adequately funded by licensing and registration fees. The funds 

are placed in to a retained revenue account and the Program is allowed to retain a 

certain percentage of the revenue from its annual fees and is capped at that point. The 

Program is trying to increase the cap and is also looking at the Program fees relative to 

NRC fees to determine if a fee increase is appropriate. 

2. The review team recommended that the Commonwealth monitor and maintain accurate 

information in its database so it can be used by Program management and staff as a 

reliable planning and tracking tool to ensure that inspections are completed within the 

required timeframe. 

Status: This recommendation was addressed prior to the 2011 periodic meeting. 

3. The review team recommended that the Commonwealth routinely perform 

accompaniments of each inspector, at least annually, to ensure quality and consistency 

in the inspection program. 

Status: The Program completed all but one supervisory accompaniment in calendar 

year 2011 and completed all of the supervisory accompaniments in calendar year 2012. 

Supervisory accompaniments are documented on a supervisor accompaniment form 

which is monitored quarterly. 

4. The review team recommended that the Commonwealth take necessary steps to ensure 

that all reportable events are submitted and updated to NRC in accordance with FSME 

Procedure SA-300. (Carryover recommendation from the 2002 IMPEP review.) 

Status: The 2010 IMPEP review team determined that five out of 51 events were not 

reported to NRC in a timely manner and timely follow up information was not provided 

for nine events which were still open in the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED). 

Since the IMPEP review, the Program has addressed the open events in NMED and has 

reported 33 new events to NRC, two of which were not reported in a timely manner. 

Neither of these incidents involved significant health and safety or security issues and 

did not have generic implications. 

5. The review team recommended that the Commonwealth adopt regulations necessary for 

compatibility within the required 3-year period. (Carryover from the 2006 IMPEP review; 

modified in the 2010 IMPEP review.) 

Status: Since the 2011 periodic meeting, the Program has submitted 11 regulation 

amendments to NRC for review. The Program is currently addressing the majority of the 

comments received from NRC on these amendments. Three of the comments will be 

addressed through the submission to the Commonwealth’s Public Health Council in a 

future rulemaking. The Program currently has no overdue regulations. 

6. The review team recommended that the Commonwealth reissue the certificate MA0555-S-102-S to contain a table indicating radiation levels under maximum loading 

conditions. 

Status: This recommendation was addressed prior to the 2011 periodic meeting. 
MA Periodic Meeting Summary 3 

7. The review team recommended that the Commonwealth make corrections to registration 

certificate MA-0166-D-102-B. (Carryover recommendation from the 2002 and 2006 

IMPEP reviews.) 

Status: This recommendation was addressed prior to the 2011 periodic meeting. 

 

8. The review team recommended that the Commonwealth reissue registration certificate 

MA-8154-D-803-B with the complete text or equivalent form. (Carryover 

recommendation from the 2006 IMPEP review; modified in the 2010 IMPEP review.) 

Status: This recommendation was addressed prior to the 2011 periodic meeting. 

OTHER TOPICS COVERED DURING THE MEETING INCLUDED:

Program Strengths

The Program has an experienced and well-trained, highly educated staff. Program staff actively 

participates in emergency response activities. The database used by the Program serves as a 

very useful tool for the licensing and inspection areas of the Program. Both senior management 

and Program management support staff training. According to Ms. Condon, the Governor 

recognizes the importance of the RCP and is adding additional FTE to the State budget. Ms. 

Condon stated that another strength of the Program is the staff’s ability to interact within other 

Offices within the Commonwealth such as State Police, Fire Services, and the Hazardous 

Materials Unit. 

Program Weaknesses

Ms. Condon stated that the open Director’s position continues to be a challenge for the 

Program; however, the position was posted and interviews have been completed so a new 

permanent Director should be in place in the near future. Another challenge the Program 

identified is dealing with public perception/concerns related to radiation issues, especially after 

the Fukushima nuclear power plant event in Japan. In addition, the Program has been 

addressing the need for knowledge management discussions in recognition of the potential 

retirement of experienced staff members in the near future. 

Feedback on the NRC’s Program

The Program commented that both the overall relationship and communications with the NRC 

are good. The Program expressed appreciation for the NRC funding of training, use of 

webinars, and NMED training at Agreement State offices. The Program managers noted that, 

because it can take approximately four weeks to receive State approval for travel, it can be 

challenging to support NRC’s requests to participate on short notice in a training class, on an 

IMPEP team or on working groups. 

Agreement State Program Staffing and Training

The Program staff currently consists of seven technical staff members and two managers, 

including the Interim Director. There are two vacancies, one technical position and the RCP 

Director position. The technical staff position will be filled in early May 2013 with an individual 

with substantial health physics experience. As mentioned previously, the Director’s position has 

been posted and interviews are completed. During the periodic meeting, Ms. Condon 
MA Periodic Meeting Summary 4 

mentioned that she had just been notified that the Governor had included two FTE in the budget 

for the RCP, one of which would be dedicated to radioactive materials. In addition, one current 

0.5 FTE will be become full-time in the RCP. One staff member currently working at the State 

Laboratory will be transferred to the RCP as soon as another individual is transferred to the 

Environmental Laboratory. Ms. Condon noted that the RCP is looking at a possible gain of 2.5 

FTE with the new positions and transfers. 

Support for staff training exists in the Program. The Program anticipates that new technical staff 

members will progress through the Program’s qualification process based on their level of 

health physics experience. Program staff has attended NRC and other training courses, 

including the NRC’s Security Systems and Principles Course. 

Organization

The Massachusetts Agreement State Program is administered by the Radiation Control 

Program which is located in the Department of Public Health. Since the 2011 MRB, the Acting 

Program Director resigned from the Program and currently an Interim Program Director 

manages the radioactive materials program. 

Program Budget/Funding

The Program is adequately funded by licensing and registration fees. The funds are placed into 

a retained revenue account and the Program is allowed to retain a certain percentage of the 

revenue from its annual fees and is capped at that point. The remainder of the revenue is 

placed into the Commonwealth’s General Fund. 

 

Inspection and Licensing Programs

The Program’s inspection frequencies are at least as frequent as NRC’s. The Program reported 

that there have been no inspections completed overdue since the 2011 MRB meeting. The 

Program staff has been focusing increased efforts on issuing inspection reports to licensees in a 

timely manner. In addition, the Program staff is in the process of issuing a significant 

enforcement action to an out-of-state licensee who failed to file for reciprocity to perform 

licensed activities on several occasions in Massachusetts. 

The Program currently has approximately 470 specific licenses. Massachusetts licensees are 

subject to a five-year license renewal term. The Program reported that there is currently no 

backlog in licensing actions. 

Regulations and Legislative Changes

There have not been any legislative changes or proposals that have affected the Program. As 

mentioned in Recommendation 5 above, the Program has submitted 11 regulation amendments 

to NRC for review since the 2011 Periodic Meeting. The Program is currently addressing the 

majority of the comments received from NRC on these amendments. The Program currently 

has no overdue regulations. 

Event Reporting

This topic is discussed in Recommendation 4 above. 
MA Periodic Meeting Summary 5 

Response to Incidents and Allegations

The Program continues to be sensitive to notifications of incidents and allegations. Incidents 

are quickly reviewed for their effect on public health and safety. Staff is dispatched to perform 

onsite investigations when necessary. The Program is aware of the need to maintain an 

effective response to incidents and allegations. 

The Program mentioned two significant events they have been addressing since the previous 

Periodic Meeting. One involved a manufacturing error by an industrial radiography device 

manufacturer’s vendor not machining to specifications on female connector sleeves. This event 

was reported to NRC prior to the 2011 Periodic Meeting. The second event involved a report of 

industrial radiography customers attaching collimators directly to radiography devices rather 

than to the guide tube as recommended by the manufacturer. This was not considered to be a 

reportable event; however, the Massachusetts licensee (manufacturer of the device) issued a 

Customer Service Information Notice and the Program amended the SS&D sheet for this device 

to address the issue. In addition, the Program discussed the issue during the October 2012 

conference call involving NRC, CRCPD, and OAS participants. 

Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program

The Program noted that there are no staffing changes in the SS&D Evaluation Program. 

Large, Complicated, or Unusual Authorizations for Use of Radioactive Material

The Program noted that a complicated action addressed in the SS&D program involved the use 

of NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2013-01, “Use of Aftermarket Sealed Sources Registered 

Under 10 CFR 32.210,” to address a request from a licensee regarding the use of aftermarket 

sealed sources. 

Commonwealth’s Mechanisms to Evaluate Performance

Inspection reports and licensing actions receive secondary technical reviews. Staff members 

are provided with weekly tickler reports of due dates for inspections and licensing actions. 

Managers conduct periodic audits of licensing actions and inspection due dates and perform 

supervisory accompaniments of inspectors on an annual basis. The Program also holds staff 

meetings at least every two months. Ms. Condon stated that she plans to attend the next staff 

meeting to address any questions/concerns that staff members may have regarding the 

Program. 

CONCLUSIONS: 

Massachusetts has an experienced and well trained staff which continues to address the 

recommendations that were made during the 2010 IMPEP review and to the open 

recommendations from previous IMPEP reviews. The Program is in the process of filling the 

open Director’s position and a technical staff position. The Program is not experiencing any 

backlogs in either inspection or licensing activities. NRC staff recommends that the next IMPEP 

review should be conducted as scheduled in FY 2014 (tentatively July 2014).