ML20134D507

Discusses Implementation of Integrated Matls Performance Evaluation Program to Be Used in Evaluation of Agreement State Programs Beginning in FY96.Questionnaire Encl

ML20134D507
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/15/1996
From:	Blanton R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Mobley M TENNESSEE, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9610220402
Download: ML20134D507 (9)

Text

Mr. Michael H. Hobley, Director Division of Radiological Health Tennessee Department of Environment .

and Conservation l Life and Casualty Annex 401 Church Street, Third Floor Nashville, TN 37243-1532 l

Dear Mr. Hobley:

l NRC is implementing, on an interim basis, the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) to be used in the evaluation of Agreement State Programs beginning in fiscal year 1996. Per our discussion, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Tennessee program scheduled for the week of December 2 - 6, 1996. The team will include Mr. Richard Woodruff, NRC Region II Regional State Agreements Officer, Mr. William Passetti, Florida Office of Radiation Control, and one additional NRC staff person. l l

Enclosed is the document, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program l Questionnaire." The questionnaire is being furnished to you on a computer l disk as well as in printed form. I ask that you send your responses by l internet (RLB0NRC. GOV) or return the disk to me by November 12, 1996. I am l sending the document and disk in advance of the December IMPEP review in order to provide time for you to allocate the staff resources necessary to complete the document by the due date. '

Part A of the questionnaire contains questions on the common performance i indicators. Part B contains questions on the non-common performance  ;

indicators for Agreement States. i l

I request that you set up an appointment with the appropriate State Senior Management Official to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the i Tennessee program on Friday, December 6, 1996.

If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 415-2322 Sincerely 9610220402 961015 Richard . Blanton PDR STPRG ESGTN Health Physicist PDR

Enclosures:

As stated cc: Mr. Don Dills, Commissioner Tennessee Dept. of Environment and Conservation Distribution: -

$43%DIRM LBangart RF DCD'(SPO!)'

PLohaus PDR (YES)

RBlanton KNSchneider RLWoodruff CHaney, NMSS Tennessee File WPassetti, FL SDroggitis DOCUMENT NAME: G:\RLB\TN960UES.RLB n e.sv. . ..py .e ths. 4 ni, inai .t. in ih. bon: c = copy vnthout .ttachmentjenclosure *E* = Copy with .ttachment/ enclosure

• N* = No copy OFFICE OSPe n l0. OSP:QDgfj OSP:D/j pl l l NAME RLBlanton WU) PLohausP"Y4v RLBangartl Wid DATE 10/W96 _ _jQ/J C/96/ 10/) l/96 SP FILE CODE: SP-AG NBC RL g g g guyy J

p cary p k UNITED STATES y

g

{ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 3088H001 l '% /g October 15, 1996 l

~

Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director Division of Radiological Health Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Life and Casualty Annex 401 Church Street, Third Floor Nashville, TN 37243-1532

Dear Mr. Mobley:

NRC is implementing, on an interim basis, the Integrated Materials Performance '

Evaluation Program (IMPEP) to be used in the evaluation of Agreement State Programs beginning in fiscal year 1996. Per our discussion, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Tennessee program scheduled for the week of December 2 - 6, 1996. The team will include Mr. Richard Woodruff, NRC Region II Regional State Agreements Officer, Mr. William Passetti, Florida Office of Radiation Control, and one additional NRC staff person.

Enclosed is the document, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaird." The questionnaire is being furnished to you on a computer disk as well as in printed form. I ask that you send your responses by internet (RLB9NRC.G0V) or return the disk to me by November 12, 1996. I am sending the document and disk in advance of the December IMPEP review in order to provide time for you to allocate the staff resources necessary to complete the document by the due date.

Part A of the questionnaire contains questions on the common performance indicators. Part B contains questions on the non-common performance indicators for Agreement States..

I reauest that you set up an appointment with the appropriate State Senior Management Official to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the Tennessee program on Friday, December 6, 1996.

If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 415-2322 g

Sincerely [  %

Richard L. Blanton Health Physicist

Enclosures:

As stated cc: Mr. Don Dills, Commissioner Tennessee Dept. of Environment and Conservation

l l

l l Approved by OMB' l No. 3150-0183 Enires 4/30/98 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM OVESTIONNAIRE l Tennessee Agreement State Program l

Reporting Period: February 4, 1994 to December 6, 1996 1

A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I. Status of Materials Inspection Proaram i

1. Please prepare a table identifying the licenses with inspections  ;

that are overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency set out in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95). The list should include initial inspections that are onrdue.

Insp. Frequency licensee Name (Year _s) Due Date Months 0/D l

2. Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue I inspections? If so, please describe the plan or provide a written copy with your response to this questionnaire. '

3. Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the State / Region is inspecting less frequently than called for in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95) and state the I reason for the change.

4. How many licensees filed reciprocity notices in the reporting period?

a. Of these, how many were industrial radiography, well-logging or other users with inspection frequencies of three years or less?

b. For those identified in 4a, how many reciprocity inspections were conducted?

Estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request: 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />. Forward comments regarding burden estimate to the information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3:50-0052), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and l a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number I -

l i" 5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers were performed?

6. For NRC Regions, did you establish numerical goals for the number

.{ of inspections to be performed during this review period? If so,

please describe your goals, the number of inspections actually performed, and the reasons for any differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections performed.

4 II. Technical Staffina and Trainina i 7. Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the

. suggested format below, of the professional (technical) person-years of effort applied to the agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the name, position, and, for Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in the following areas: administration, materials licensing & compliance, emergency response, LLW, U-mills, other. If these regulatory responsibilities are divided between offices, the table should be consolidated to include all personnel contributing to the radioactive materials program. Include all vacancies and identify l all senior personnel assigned to monitor work of junior personnel.

If consultants were used to carry out the program's radioactive

, materials responsibilities, include their efforts. The table I j heading should be: l I NAME POSITION AREA 0F EFFORT l

i j 8. Please provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired i

since the last review, indicate the degree (s) they received, if applicable, and additional training and years of experience in

health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate.

1

9. Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the

. qualification requirements of license reviewer / materials l l inspection staff (for NRC, Inspection Manual Chapters 1245 and '

1246; for Agreement States, please describe your qualifications

~

requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For i

, each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need '

I to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.

I

10. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program during this period.

2

III. Technical Quality of Licensina Actions

11. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, received a major amendment, terminated or renewed in this period.

12. Please identify any new or amended licenses added or removed from the list of licensees requiring emergency plans?

13. Discuss any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during the review period.  ;

14. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.)

during the reporting period?

i

15. For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and )

type, any renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more. j IV. Technical Ouality of Insoections

16. What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period?

17. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period. Include:  ;

Suoervisor Insoector License Cat. Date

18. Describe internal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of inspectors in the- field. If supervisory accompaniments were documented, please provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment.

19. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are all instruments properly calibrated at the present time?

V. Resoonses to Incidents and Alleaations

20. Please provide a list of the most sianificant incidents (i.e.,

medical misadministration, overexposures, lost and abandoned sources, incidents requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less notification, etc.)

that occurred in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to NRC need not be repeated. The list should be in the following format:

3

l l

LICENSEE NAME LICENSE # DATE OF INCIDENT / REPORT TYPE OF INCIDENT

21. During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source failure or approved operating procedures that were deficient? If so, how and when were other Statt/NRC licensees who might be affected notified?

a. For States, was timely notification made to the Office of State Programs? For Regions, was an appropriate and timely PN generated?

22. For incidents involving failure of equipment or sources, was information on the incident provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency? Please provide details for each case.

23. In the period covered by this review, were there any cases involving possible wrongdoing that were reviewed or are presently undergoing review? If so, please describe the circumstances for each case.

24. Identify any changes to your procedures for handling allegations that occurred during the period of this review,

a. For Agreement States, please identify any allegations referred to your program by the NRC that have not been closed.

VI. General

25. Please prepare a summary of the status of the State's or Region's actions taken in response to the comments and recommendations following the last review.

26. Provide a brief description of your program's strengths and weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, problems or difficulties which occurred during this review period.

4 l

l . -

B. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I. Reaulations and leaal Authority

27. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control program (RCP).

28. Are your regulations subject to a " Sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain and include the next expiration date for your i regulations.  ;

29. Please complete the enclosed table based on NRC chronology of amendments. Identify those that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and discuss any actions being taken to adopt them.

30. If you have not adopted all amendments within three years from the date of NRC rule promulgation, briefly describe your State's l procedures for amending regulations in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC, showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.

i l

II. Sealed Source and Device Proaram

31. Prepare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issued during the review period. The table heading should be:

SS&D Manufacturer, Type of Registry Distributor or Device Number Custom User or Source

32. What guides, standards and procedures are used to evaluate registry applications?

33. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Sealed Source and Device Program:

Technical Staffing and Training - A.II.7-10 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.ll, A.III.13-14 Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 TABLE FOR QUESTION 29.

5

I t

OR , i DATE DATE F I

10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED' STATUS ADOPTION r Any amendment due prior to 1991.

Identify each regulation (refer to the i Chronology of Amendments)

Decommissioning: 7/27/91 Parts 30,40,70 .

Emergency Planning. 4/7/93 Parts 30,40,70 Standards for Protection Against Radiation: 1/1/94 Part 20 Safety Requirements for Radiographic 1/10/94  !

Equipment: Part 34 j Notification of inciderits: 10/15/94 {i Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 70 Quality Management Program and 1/27/95 Misadministrations; Part 35 '

Licensing and Radiation Safety 7/1/96 Requirements for Irradiators: Part 36 i

i

,. Definition of Land Disposal 7/22/96 ,

and Waste Site OA Program: Part 61 Decommissioning Recordkeeping: Docu- 10/25/96 i mentation Additions: Parts 30,40,70 t Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial 1/28/97 Mechanism; Parts 30,40,70 I

Uranium Mill Tailings: Conforming to EPA 7/1/97

, Standards: Part 40

i 6  !

i I

b

--.=,m , -

- _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ -. . _ _ _ - _ - - . _ - - _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _-_ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ .

i OR ,

DATE DATE .

10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED N EXPECTED STATUS ADOPTION Timelmess in Decommissioneg 8/15/97 Parts 30, 40,- 70 Prepara60n. Transfer for Commercial Dis- 1/1/98 tribution, and Use of Byproduct Material for Medical Use: Parts 30,32,35 Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use 3/13/98 of Respiratory Protection Equipment Low-level Waste Shipment Manifest 3/1/98 information and Reporting i Performance Requirements for Radiography 6/30/98 Equipment Radiation Protection Requirements: 8/14/98  ;

Amended Definitions and Criteria '

Clarification of Decommissioning Funding 11/24/98 Requirements  ;

10 CFR Part 71: Compatibility with the 4/1/99 ~

International Atomic Energy Agency Medical Administration of Radiation and 10/20/98  !

Radioactive Materials.  ;

Termination or Transfer of Licensed 5/16/99  ;

Activities: Recordkeeping Reouirements.

t r

I 7

i

_ _ _ - _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___-_______ - _ _ _ _ - -