ML20199E903

Forwards Document, Integrated Matl Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaire. Responses Requested to Be Sent by Internet or Return Disk by 980320

ML20199E903
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/21/1998
From:	Blanton R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Whatley K ALABAMA, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9802030002
Download: ML20199E903 (12)

Text

..

Mr. Kirksey Whatley, Director JAN 21 1993 Division of Radiation Contr;l 4

Alabama Department of Public Health The RSA Tower, Suite 700 P.O. Box 303017 Montgomery, AL 36130 3017

Dear Mr. Whatley:

As you are aware, NRC is using the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) for the evaluation of Agrcement State Programs. Per our discussion and your prior discussion with Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, Region ll Regional State Agreements Officer, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Alabama program scheduled for the week of April 20 24,1998. The team will include Mr. Woodruff, Mr. William Silva, Texas Department of Health, and a representative of the NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to be named later.

Enclosed is the document, integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program 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 (RLB@NRC. GOV) or return the disk to me by March 20,1998. I am sending the document and disk in advance of the 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.

Also included with the quesilonnaire is the document ' Materials Requested to Be Available for the Onsite Portion of an IMPEP Review.' We encourage States to have the items listed prepared prior to the IMPEP team's arrival.

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 Alabama program on the moming of Friday, April 24,1998.

p,,

h3 If you have questions, please call me at (301) 415-2322.

(I C#

i (/

Sincerely, g20g g gog Original signed by:

Ridiard L. Blanton, Health Phys aist PDR j

y Office of State Programs Enclosures;

- h As stated I

' C cc:

Donald E. Williamson, MD H,

H,,H,IH.

.Stato Health Officer g

bk Distribution:

~ 0 5 " ""

_DCD (SP06 f DIR RF RWooaruff, Ril P-~

SDroggitis Alabama File fPDR,(YES_/i NO

)

KSchneider 020094 DOCUMENT NAME: GARLB\\98R0050L.WPD-

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.

to r.cev.. cop oe thi. oocum.nt. inoica. in the bor e. copy wnian.n. chm.nve s.

e Acop, we en.*n.nvence.sw. Y m No eopy

[

OFFICE OSP l

OSP.DD l

OSP;DL 1, l

l l

NAME RLBlanton:nb PHLohaus RLBangart t '66 DATE 01/20/98*

01/21/98*

01/2 !/98 l

,OSP Fit.E CODEL SP-AG-il '

g Mr. Kirksey Whatley, Director Division of Radiation Control Alabama Department of Public Health The RSA Tower, Suite 700 P.O. Box 303017

, Montgomery, AL 36130-3017

Dear Mr. Whatley:

As you are aware, NRC is using the Integrated Materials Performa e Evaluation Program (IMPEP) for the evaluation of Agreement State Programs. Per o discussion and your prior discussion with Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, Region ll Regional St ', Agree'nents Officer, I will be e

the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Alabama progra scheduled for the week of April 20 24,1998. The team will include Mr. Woodruff, Mr.

illiam Silva, Texas Department of Health, and a representative of the NRC Office of Nuclear Aaterials Safety and Safeguards, to be named later.

Enclosed is the document, " Integrated Materials Pe rmance Evaluation Program Questionnaire." The questionnaire is being furnis d to you on a computer disk as well as in printed form. I ask that you send your response y internet (RLB@NRC. GOV) or return the disk to me by March 20,1998. I am sending i document and disk in advance of the IMPEP review in order to provide time for you to allo te the staff resources necessary to complete the document by the due date.

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

Also included with the questionnal is the document ' Materials Requested to Be Available for the Onsite Portion of an Impep Review." We encourage States to have the items listed prepared prior to the IMPEP t Im's arrival.

I request that you set up a appointment with the approprita State Senior Management Official to discuss the results of e IMPEP review of the Alabama program on the morning of Friday, April 24,1998.

If you have questio s, please call me at (301) 415-2322.

Sincerely, Richard L. Blanton, Health Physicist Office of State Programs Encio res:

As s ted cc-Donald E. Williamson, MD State Health Officer

/ Distribution:

DIR RF RWoodruff. Ril DCD (SP06 )

SDroggitis Alabama File PDR(YESL NO

)

KSchneider DOCUMENT NAME: GARLB\\98R005QLWP vo r.c.iv.. eopp of tam occum.nt. inow. in in. boa: c c<s+h at eti.cnment<.nciosur. i. cony witn att cnment/.nclosur. *N"

• No copy OFFICE OOSQ lC O#pQ/ l OSP.D l

l l

NAME RLBIM16sd6)

PHLein/si/\\

RLBangart DATE M1//O/98 01I/l/98 01/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-1

.s

• ***og\\ -

4 UNITED STATES j)

WAsNINefoN, D.C. SpeeMcD1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION January 21, 1998 Mr. Kirksey Whatley, Director Division of Radiation Control Alabems Department of Public Health The RSA Tower, Suite 700 P.O. Box 303017 -

Montgomery, AL 38130 3017

Dear Mr. Whatley:

As you are aware, NRC is using the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) for the evaluation of Aeroement State Programs. Per our discussion and your prior discussion with Mr. Richard L Woodruff, Region ll Regional State Agreements Officer, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Alabama program scheduled for the week of April 20 24,1998. The team will include Mr. Woodruff, Mr. William Silva, Texas Department of Health, and a representative of the NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to be nan 4d later.

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

. Questionnaire." The. questionnaire is being fumished to you on a computer disk as well as in ~

printed form. _ l ask that you send your responses by intemet (RLBONRC. GOV) or return the disk to me by March 20,1998. I am sending the document and disk in advance of the 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 indicatorsL Part B

, contains questions on the non-common performance indicators for A0reement States.

Also included with the questionnaire is the document " Materials Requested to Be Available for.

the Onsite Portion of an IMPEP Review.' We encourage States to have the items listed -

prepared prior to the IMPEP team's arrival.

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 Alabama program on the moming of Friday, April 24,1998.

~

if you have questions, please call me at (301) 415 2322.

Since y,'

Richard L. Blanton, Health Physicist Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

! Donald E. Williamson, MD State Health Officer.

t.

Approved by OMB' No. 3150 0183 Expires 4/30/98 INTNGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE Name of State / Regional Program Reporting Period: Month XX, [ YEAR), to Month XX, [ YEAR)

A.

COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1.

Status of Matarlate inanardlon Pronram 1,

Please prepare a table identifying the licenses with inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of t' 'l scheduled frequency set out in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800. The 1.ra Oould include initial inspections that are overdue, insp. Frequency Licensee Name (Years)

Due Date Months O/D 2.

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

questionnaire.

3.

Pleece identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the State / Region is L

inspecting more or less frequently than called for in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 and state the reason for the change.

3 Estimated burden per response to comp:y with this voluntary collection request: 45 hours5.208333e-4 days <br />0.0125 hours <br />7.440476e-5 weeks <br />1.71225e-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 (3150-0183), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. If an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

4.

Please complete the following table for licensees granted reciprocity during the reporting

period, Number of Licensees Granted Reciprocity Number of Licensees Priority Permits Each Year inspected Each Year Service Licensees performing YR YR teletherapy and irradiator source YR YR installations or changes YR YR YR YR YR YR 1

YR YR YR YR YR YR YR YR 2

YR YR YR YR YR YR YR YR 3

YR YR YR YR YR YR 4

All Other 5.

Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers were perfomad?

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, ll.

Technical Quality of,l_nsoections 7.

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

2

4 -

8.

Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments -

made during the review period, include:

kanglet Supervisor Licanna cat. Qalt 9.

Describe intomal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of

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

10, Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are allinstruments properly calibrated at the present time?

3 Ill.

Technical Stafflng and Training

11. -

Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested fo' mat 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 s nt in the following areas: administration, materials licensing & compliance. < A nergency response, 1-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 materiols respondoilities, include their efforts. The table heading should be:

NAME POSITION AREA OF EFFORT EIE%

12.

Pl6ase provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since the last

. review, indicate the degree (s) they reoelved, if applicable, and additional training and years of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate.

13.

Please list all professional staff wla have not y61 met the qualification -

requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection staff (for NRC, inspection Manual Chapters 1246; for Agreement States, please describe your -

quellfications 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.

14.

Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program

. during this period.

- 15. :

List the vacant positions in each program, the length of time each position has been vacant, and a brief summary of efforts to fill the vacancy.

-3 1

IV.-

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions i16.

Picase identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, j

rooolved a major amendment, were terminated, decommissioned, submitted a bankruptcy notifloation or renewed in this period. Also identify any new cr i

amended licenses that now require emergency plans.

t 17.

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

18.

What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (now 1

procedures, uphtes, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?

19.

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

V, Ramponaan to incidents and Allegations 20.

_ Please provide a list of the reportable incidents (i.e., medical misedministration, -

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. See Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in

. Agreement States for additional guidance.) that occurr9d in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information included in previous submittels to NRC need not be repeated (i.e., those submitted under OM8 clearance number 3150-0178, Nuclear Material Events Database).; The list should be in the following format:

LICENSEE NAME LICENSE #

DATE OF INCIDENT / REPORT TYPE OF INCIDENT J

21.-

During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source -

failure or approved operating procedures that_ wore deficient? If so, how and when were other State /NRC licensees who migiit be affected notified? For States, was timely -

notification made to NRC7 For Regions, was an appropriate and timely PN generated?

I 22.

For incidents involving failure of equipment or sources, was information on the incident i

provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the devios for an assessment of R

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.

2 4

l J

i

+

24.

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

a.

For Agreemerit 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

)'

l.

Leaislation and Proaram Elements Reauired for Comoatibility

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.

29. Please complete the enclosed tabic based on NRC chronology of arrendments. Identify those that have nt: been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and discuss any actions being taken to adopt them. Identify the regulations that the State has adopted through legally binding requirements other than regulations.

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

II.

Sealed Scurce ar(Device F/oaram

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

SS&D Manufacturer, Type of Registry Distributor or Device Date Number Custom User or Source lssued 32.

What guides, standards and procedures are used to evaluate registry applicat Ons?

5

[

33.

Please include information on the following questions in Secen A, es t b sy apply to the.

Sealed Source and Device Program:

- Technical Staffing and Training - A.lil.11-15

- Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.IV.16. Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20,-

! lll.

Low-Level Wanta Proaram 34.

' Please include information on the folle ving 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 Quality of Inspections - A.ll.7-10

-Technical Staffing and Training - A.lll.11-15 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.IV.16-18 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23

. IV.

Uranium Mill Presrem

- 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 Quality of Inspections - A.II.7-10 Technical Staffing and Training - A.Ill.11-15 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.IV.16-18 Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23

)

6

'i

l TABLE."OR QUESTION 29.

OR DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED STATUS ADOPTION Any anrec.siient due prior to 1991. Identify t

each regulation (refer to the Chronology of Amendments)

Decommissioning:

7/27/91 Parts 30. 40. 70 Emergency Planning:

4/7/93 Parts 30,40. 70 Standards for Protection Agahist Radiation; 1/1/94 Part 20 Safety Requirements for Radiographic 1/10/94 Equipment; Part 34 Notrfication of incidents:

10/15/94 Parts 20,30,31. 34,39. 40. 70 Quality Management Program and 1/27/95 Misa6 ministrations: Part 35 Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements 7/1/96 for Irradiators: Part 36 Definition of Land Disposal 7/22/96 and Was*e Site OA Program; Part 61 Decommissioning Record.eeping: Docu-10/25/96 mentation Additions: Parts 30,40,70 Self-Guarantee as an Additicnal Financial 1/28/97 l

Mechanism; Parts 30. 40,70 J

Uranium Mill Tailings: Conforming to EPA 7/1/97 Standards; Part 40 Timeliness in Decommissionity 8/15/97 Parts 30. 40,70 Preparation. Transfer for Commercial Dis-1/1/98 tribution, and Use of Byproduct Material for Medical Use; Parts 30. 32,35 7

.i OR DATE-DATE

'10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED

' STATUS' ADOPTION Frequency of Medcal Egminstions for Use of 3/13/98 ~

1 Respiratory Protechon E*=_*=vw,ct Low-LevelWaste Shepmen Manifest 3/1/98 informahon and Reporeng Performance Reqsiirements for Radography 6/30/98 E<=*=nent Radabon Protechon Requwements. Amended 8/14/98 Dennitions and Criteria Clarincahon of Decommessioning Funding 11/24/98 R==*ements 10 CFR Part 71: Compalibelity with the 4/1/99 Intemational Atome Energy Agency Mescal Administrabon of Radiation and 10/20/98 Radioeceve Materials Terminston orTransfer of Licensed A::9vities-6/16/99 Recordkeeping Requwements Resolution of Dual Regulabon of Airbome 1/920 Effluents of Radioachve Materials; Clean Air Act Fissile Material Shipments and Exerv= mans 2/10/00-Recogrution cd Agreement State Licenses in 2/27/00 Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdicbon Within an Agreement State Cnteria for the Release of Individuals 5/29/00 Admenistered Radioachve Material Licenses for industrial r<adiography and 6/27/00 Radiahon Safety PW for Industnal Radiography Opesadons: Final Rule I

Rantalogemt Cnteria for License Termination 8/20/00 1

8

MATERIALS REQUESTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE ONSITE PORTION OF AN IMPEP REVIEW ORGANIZATION CHARTS Clean, sized 8% X 11" including names and positiora.

a One showing positions from Govemor down to Fadiation Control Program Director (RCPD) a One showing positions of current radiation control program with RCPD as Head a Equivalent charts for LLRW and mills programs, if applicable LICENSE LISTS a Printouts of current licenses, showing total, as follows:

Name License #

Location License Type Priority Last inspection Due Date Sort alphabetically Also, sort by due date and by priority (if possible)

THE FOLLOWING LISTS i

a List of open license cases, with date of original request, and dates of follow up actions a List of licenses terminated during revlaw period, a Copy of current log or other document used to track licensing actions a Copy of current log or other document used to track inspectiorm d

a List of Inspection frequency by license type a Listing or log of all incidents and allegations occurring during the review period. Show whether incident is open or closed and whether it was reported to the NRC THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS '

a All State regulations a Records of results of supervisory a Statutes affecting the regulatory authority of accompaniments of inspectors the state program o Emergency plan and communications list a Standard license conditions a Procedures for investigating allegations a Technical procedures for lice--ho, model a Enforcement procedures, including licenses, review guides procedures for escalated enforcement, a SS&D review procedures severity levels, civil penalties (as applicable) a Instrument calibration records a Copies of job descriptions a inspection procedures and guides a inspection report forms 9

- __________-