ML20137W127

Notifies of NRC Implementation,On Interim Basis,Of Integrated Matls Performance Evaluation Program to Be Used in Evaluation of Agreement State Programs Beginning in 1997. Questionnaire Encl

ML20137W127
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/28/1997
From:	Blanton R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Marshall S NEVADA, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9704180038
Download: ML20137W127 (9)

Text

<

MAR 2 8 '1997 Mr. Stenisy R. Marshall, Sup rvisor Radiologicti Hacith Szction; Department of Human Resources 400 West King Street, Room 101 Carson City, NV 89710 eene, ,.c

. . . . ... n. . e . . .. ,, , . . .

Dear Mr. Marshall:

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 1997. Per our discussion, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Nevada program scheduled for the week of August 25- 29,1997. The team will include Jack Hornor, Regional State Agreements Officer, NRC Region IV, and Donald Bunn, Supervising Health Physicist for Enforcement and Compliance, Radiologic Health Branch, California Department of Health Services.

Enclosed is the document, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program ,

Questionnaire." The questionnaire is being furnished to you on a computer disk as well as j in printed form. I ask that you send your responses by intemet to RLB@NRC. GOV or retum i the disk to me by July 25,1997. I am sending the document and disk in advance of the  ;

August 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.

l Part B contains questions on the non-common performance indicators for Agreement

States, i l request that you set up an appointment with the appropriate State Senior Management I Official to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the Nevada program on Friday, i August 29,1997.

l l If you have questions, please call me at (301) 415-2322, 4 Sincerely Rich rd L. Blanton Office of State Programs l

Enclosures:

As stated

~S i]

l cc: Yvonne Sylva, Administrator j- Nevada State Health Division Distribution: ,

g DIR RF DCD (SPO8)

KNSchneider PDR (YES)

Nevada File 170171 l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\RLB\NVDATLTR.RLB l Ts recehre e copy of this document, ind6cete in the boa: "C' = C_opyvIsthout attachment /ed re = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy j OFFICE OSP lO OSP:pT/ t l O S.M g j'_ l l l l NAME RLBlanton:kif5/c.fL PHLohatis W RLBangart 7Er DATE 036/9tW 03/7d/97 03/29/97 OSP FILF. CODE: SP-AG-17 I ISMI C U C.;e3i,ig g 9704180038 970328 PDR STPRG ESGNV PDR w

pwh g 4 UNITED STATES s# j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066H001

,1, .

...../

. . . - . 4 Mareb 26, 10% . . . . . * * . - is * .

Mr. Stanley R. Marshall, Supervisor Radiological Health Section Department of Human Resources 400 West King Street, Room 101 Carson City, NV 89710

Dear Mr. Marshall:

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 1997. Per our discussion, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Nevada program scheduled for the week of August 25- 29,1997. The team will include Jack Hornor, Regional State Agreements Officer, NRC Region IV, and Donald Bunn, Supervising Health Physicist for Enforcement and Compliance, Radiologic Health Branch, Califomio Department of Health Services.

Enclosed is the document, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaire." The questionnsire is being furnished to you on a computer disk as well as in printed form. I ask that you send your responses by interr.et to RLB@NRC. GOV or retum the disk to me by July 25,1997. I am sending the document and disk in advance of the August IMPEP review in order to provide time for you to allocate the staff resources necessary to complete tne 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 request that you set up an appointment with the appropriate State Senior Management Official to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the Nevada program on Friday, August 29,1997, if you have questions, please call me at (301) 415-2322.

Sincerely -

M<

~

x Richard L. Eklanton Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated cc: Yvonne Sylva, Administrator l Nevada State Health Division

~ _ _ . . _._ ___._ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _

i Approved by OMB' No. 3150-0183  !

...c. . -. . .= . . .= **. **. ** ExpliG 4/30/9B* * ^ *

• INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM l

QUESTIONNAIRE I Nevada Program Reporting Period: March 5,1993, to August 25,1997 A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS j l

1. Status of Materials insoection Procram

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 overdue.

Insp. Frequency Licensee Name (Yearsi Due Date Months O/D I

l

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

3. Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the State is inspecting  !

less frequently than callec for in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (issued 1 4/17/95) and state the reason for the change. -

I l

i

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 />.

Forwacd 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 Papenwork Reduction Project (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 number. ]

l }

l l

i

5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers m .< were .pe,rforme.d.?

~ , . , , . . c, - , . , , . . .. . .. .. .. . .o .. .-.a.-.

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

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 i offices, the table should be consolidated to include all personnel contributing to the radioactive materials program, include all vacancies and identify all senior l 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 OF EFFORT

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

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

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

Ill. Technical Quality of Licensino Actions

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

2

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

i l

l

12. Please identify any new or amended licenses added or removed from the list of ,

licensees requiring emergency plans?

.. . . , . ..,.. l

.. w . .. . * ** . .. .. ... ..

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?

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

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 j made during the review period. Include 1

Suoervisor Insoector License Cat. Qate I j l- 18. Describe intemal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of

inspectors in the field. If supervisory accompaniments were documented, please provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment.

l

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

l V. Resoonses to incidents and Alleaations i 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:

LICENSEE NAME LICENSE # DATE OF INCIDENT / REPORT TYPE OF INCIDENT 4

i 3

l l 21. During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or

i. source failure or approved operating procedures that were deficient? If so Lo a " * " *

• und'whuitereuthenSikte/NRC licefhsflH!rs #no niis)hi tie ~aHiRA8d'nditaiF, ^ * " "

• how l

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.

l

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

l

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

s. 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.

B. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Bagulations and Leoal 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 regulations.

I 4 l

l

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 I ,.. . . . . . . shrt.rsh,arxf dtcu24ny-tetiros Mrstaksn tosdept ther v ==

• v = -

• - *O

30. If you have not adopted all amendments within three years from the date of NRC l rule promulgation, briefly describe your State's procedures for amending l reguk'tions in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC, showing the normal  ;

length o' time anticipated to complete each step.

II. Sealed Source and Device Proaram l

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

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

J

! 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 l

to the Sealed Source and Device Program:

Technical Staffing and Training - A.ll.7-10 l Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.lll.11, A.lli.13-14  ;

! Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 l l

lil. Low-Level Waste Proaram l 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 l Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A lll.11, A.Ill.13-14 l

Technical Quality of Inspections - A.IV.16-19 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 IV. Uranium Mill Proaram

(

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

l l Status of Materials inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 Technical Staffing and Training - A.ll.7-10

j. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.lli.11, A.lli.13-14 i Technical Quality of Inspections - A.IV.16-19

! Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 i 5 4

l

-. . . = . ~ . ~ . . - - , - - . . - .

TABLE FOR QUESTION 29. . .

OR e ,

DATE - '

DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT -

'CXPECTED ,

STATUS

• ADOPTION Any amendment due prior to 1991. .' ,

identify each regulation (refer to the j Chronology of Amendments) 4 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 e Notification of incidents; 10/15/94

• 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 +

1 6 Definition of Land Disposal 7/22/96 =

and Waste Site QA Program: Part 61  ;

Decommissioning Recordkeeping: Docu- 10/25/96 mentation Additions; Parts 30,40,70 ,

e Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial 1/28/97 Mechanism; Parts 30,40,70 t

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

Standards: Part 4G e Timeliness in Decommissioning 8/15/97 Parts 30,40,70 ,  !

i

e e

emme OR j .

DATE DATE i 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT l EXPECTED STATUS $ ADOPTION Preparation. Transfer for Commercial Dis- 1/1/98 f 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 l ,

E Radiation Protection Requirements: 8/14/98 Amended Definitions and Criteria ,

a Clarification of Decommissioning Funding 11/24/98 ,

Requirements -

10 CFR Part 71: Compatibility with the 4/1/99 Intemational Atomic Energy Agency i Medical Administration of Radiation and 10/20/98 Radioactive Materials.

Termination or Transfer of Licensed 5/16/99 Activities: Recordkeeping Requirements.

P Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne 1/9/00 4 Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean .

Air Act f,

Recognition of Agreement State Ucenses 1/13/Q0 e in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Within Agreement State Criteria for the Release of Individuals 1/29/00 4 Administered Radioactive Material l 2

GARLB\NVIMPEPO.RLB e

7 I

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