ML20134M941

Requests That Response to Encl Integrated Matls Performance Evaluation Program Questionaire, Be Used in Evaluation of Agreement State Programs Beginning FY96

ML20134M941
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/18/1996
From:	Craig Gordon NRC
To:	Goff R MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9611260098
Download: ML20134M941 (10)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _.. _ _._ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _

i

! November 18, 1996

8 1- .

l t

1 Mr. Robert W. Goff, Director l j Division of Radiological Health I i - State Department of Health '

3150 Lawson Street l Post Office Box 1700 t Jackson, MS 39215-1700 l l

Dear Mr. Goff:

1 i . The NRC is implementing, on an interim basis, the Integrated Materials Performance )

l- Evaluation Program (IMPEP) to be used in the evaluation of Agreement State Programs I beginning in Fiscal Year 1996. Per our discussion, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Mississippi program scheduled for the week of January 27-31,1997. The

team willinclude Richard Woodruff, State Agreements Officer, NRC Region 11, Sally 1 Merchant, NRC Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, and Cynthia Cardwell, )

Texas Bureau of Radiation Control. l 1

Enclosed is the document, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program J Questionnaire." 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 to me at CZG@NRC. GOV

! or return the disk to me by December 20,1996. I am sending the document and disk in -)

l advance of the January 1997 IMPEP review in order to provide time for you to allocate the I f staff resources necessary to complete the document by the due date.

j Part A of the questionnaire contains questions on the common performance indicators.

Part B contains questions on the non-common performance indicators for Agreement j States.

Please set up an appointment with the appropriate State senior management official to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the Mississippi program on the morning of January 31,1997.

i

If you hava questions, please call me at (610) 337-5216.

1 1 Sincerely,

'l. Original Signed By:

Craig Z. Gordon Craig Z. Gordon State Agreements Officer

'i

Enclosures:

- As stated I cc w/o enclosures: P

/<-Li /

-2lM 0 Dr. F. E. Thompson, State Health Officer ) k R. Boggan, Bureau of Environmental Health

)

?G000z.

i '

9611260098 96111e

-PDR, STPRO ESOMS R OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY SPO,

. PDR a

I' Distribution w/o enclosures:

• - S. Merchant, NMSS R. Woodruff, Ril C. Cardwell, Texas Bureau of Radiation Control i

l I

l

)

i l

DOCUMENT NAME: S:\pending\G0FF.LTR j Ta receive a copy of this document, indcate in the box: 'C' = Copy without attachtnent/ enclosure "E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N* = No copy l OFFICE DNMS / lC /g l  :/ l l l l NAME GORDON A2/ W NL, i DATE 11/15/96 11//f/96 11/ /96 11/ /96 11/ /96 l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

l l

4

f. '

i

Approved by OMB5 No. 3150-0183 Expires 4/30/98 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM OUESTIONNAIRE l MISSISSIPPI l

Reporting Period: September 24, 1993 to December 31, 1996 j A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I. Status of Materials Insoection Proaram

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

'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 overdue.

Insp. Frequency Licensee Name (Years)- Due Date Months 0/0

2. Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If so, please describe the plan or provide a written- 1 l copy with your response to this questionnaire. l l  !

3. Please identify individual licensees or grou)s of licensees the l l State / Region is ins)ecting less frequently tlan called for in NRC l l Inspection Manual Clapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95) and state the 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 l or other users with inspection frequencies of three years or less? l 1

i

. . 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 i Commission. Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project 4

(3150-0052). Office of Management and Budget. Washington, DC 20503. NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control 1 1

number.

I j

1

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

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.

II. Technical Staffino and Trainino i

7. Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the l 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 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 heading should be:

NAME POSITION AREA 0F EFFORT l

8. Please )rovide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since t1e last review, indicate the degree (s) they received. if  ;

applicable, and additional training and years of experience in l 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 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 each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.

I 10. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS )

I, program during this period.

i

3 I

l 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 ]rocedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during t1e review period.

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

during the reporting period?

15. For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type, any renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.

IV. Technical Quality of Insoections i

16. What.1f 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 l I

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. j

19. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are all instruments properly calibrated at the present time? 4 3

i l

I i

V. Responses to Incidents and Alleaations l

20. Please provide a list of the most sianificant incidents (i.e.. I 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 i Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to l NRC need not be repeated. The list should be in the following format:

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

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

l l

l

a. For States, was timely notification made to the Office of State .

Programs? For Regions, was an appropriate and timely PN l

generated?

l

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 l provide details for each case.

l

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.

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

a. For Agreement States, please identify any allegations referred to j 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 ard weaknesses should be supported by examples of l successes, problens or difficulties which occurred during this review l period.

4

l 1

B. NON COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

, I. Reaulations and Leaal Authority

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

j i

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

5

29. Please com)lete the enclosed table based on NRC chronology of amendments.

Identify tiose that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they 1 were not adopted, and discuss any actions being taken to adopt them.

4 I

i 30. If you have not adopted all amendments within three years from the date of 4

NRC rule promulgation, briefly describe-your State's procedures for

amending regulations in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC.

l showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.

l l

II. Secled Source and Device Proaram I i 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 y Number Custom User or Source

}

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

i

! 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 I

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.11. A.III.13-14 Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 III. Low-Level Waste Program

34. Please include information on the following questions in Section A. as they apply to the Low-level Waste Program:

Status of Materials Inspection Program - A.I.1-3. A.I.6 Technical Staffing and Training - A.II.7-10 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.11. A.III.13-14 Technical Quality of Inspections - A.IV.16-19 Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 5

,IV.' Uranium Mill Proaram

35. Please include information on the following questions in Section A. as they apply to the Uranium Mill Program:

Status of Materials Inspection Program - A.I.1-3. A.I.6 Technical Staffing and Training - A.II.7-10 l Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.11. A.III.13-14 Technical Quality of Inspections - A.IV.16-19 Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 6

l TABLE FOR QUESTION 29. .

OR i DATE DATE i 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED-STATUS ADOPTION '

t Any amendment due prior to 1991. Identify L each regulation (refer to the Chronology of Amendments)

Decommissioning; 7/27/91 Parts 30,40,70 -[

Emergency Planning; 4/7/93  ;

l Parts 30,40,70 ,

Standards for Protection Against Radiation; 1/1/94 ,

Part 20 >

Safety Requirements for Radiographic 1/10/94 Equipment; Part 34 Notification of incidents; 10/15/94- f Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 70  ;

4 Quality Management Program and 1/27/95  !

Misadministrations; Part 35 j

Licensing and Radiation Safety 7/1/96  ;

Requirements for Irradiators: Part 36 Definition of Land Disposal 7/22/96 ,

and Waste Site QA Program; Part 61 Decommissioning Recordkeeping: Docu- 10/25/96 j mentation Additions; Parts 30,40,70 '

! Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial 1/28/97 i Mechanism; Parts 30,40,70 '

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

Standards; Part 40 Timeliness in Decommissioning 8/15/97 Parts 30,40,70 t 4

4 7 i

i

OR DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED STATUS ADOPTION Preparation 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 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: Compatiutity with the 4/1/99 Intemational Atornic Energy Agency Medical Administration of Radiation and 10/20/98 Radioactive Materials.

8

. _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _- . _ _