ML20212K016
| ML20212K016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/15/1999 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212K013 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9910060082 | |
| Download: ML20212K016 (20) | |
Text
E F
i INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP) FOLLOW UP REVIEW OF THE KANSAS RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM June 15-17,1999 i
FINAL REPORT i
1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
4 9910060082 990924
- PDR STPRG ESOKSPDR
g
~
~ Kansas Follow Up Final Report Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. This report presents the results of the follow-up review of the Kansas Depar1 ment of Health and Environment (DHE), Bureau of Air and Radiation, radiation control program (RCP) conducted June 15-17,1999. This follow-up review was directed by the Management Review Board
.(MRB) based on the results of the June 15-19,1998 IMPEP review. The MRB stated that a follow-up review of the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be conducted in one year based on the satisfactory with recommendations for improvement finding for this indicator. The follow-up review also included evaluation of actions taken by the
- State to address the five recommendations made during the June 15-19,1998 IMPEP review involving this indicator.
The fcMw-up review was conducted by a review team consisting of technical staff members l
from t.n Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of Arkansas. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The follow-up review was conducted in accordance with the
" Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," published in the Federal Register on September 3,1997 (62 FR 46517), and the November 25,1998, NRC Management Directive 5.6," Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)."
The Fansas Agreement State program is administered by the Secretary, DHE, who reports directly to the Govemor. The RCP is under the direction of the Bureau of Air and Radiation, Divisinn of Environment. At the time of the follow up review, the Kansas program regulated approximately 316 specific licenses, including aK types of major licensees except for uranium mill tailings.
In preparation for the follow-up review, a questionnaire addressing the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing, and current program status was sent to the State on May 25,1999. The State provided a response to the questionnaire on June 8,1999. A copy of the response L included in Appendix D of the draft IMPEP report.
' The team's approach for conducting the follow-up review consisted of: (1) examination of Kansas' response to the questionnaire; (2) in-depth review of the program indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, for the period of June 20,1998 - June 14,1999, including technical review of selected licensing program documentation and evaluation of Kansas' actions in response to the five recommendations involving this indicator; (3) discussion of the status of Kansas' actions to~ address the remaining 13 recommendations in the 1998 report; and i
- (4) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify issues. The team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, for activities conducted during the period of June 20,1998 - June 14,1999. Preliminary results were discussed with 1
Kansas management on June 17,1999.
I Section 2 below discusses the results of the follow-up review of the Kansas program for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. Section 3 summarizes the review team's findings and recommendations resulting from the follow-up review. The State's progress in addressing other recommendations from the 1998 review can be found in Appendix B.
E L'
Kansas Follow Up Final Report Page 2 2.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR, TECHNICAL QUALITY OF LICENSING ACTIONS During the follow-up review, the team evaluated actions taken by the State in response to the recommendations for improvement noted during the 1998 review, as well as new licensing actions completed since that review.
The team reviewed licensing actions, deficiency correspondence, and checklists for 20 licensing actions. Licenses were reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and its conditions, tie-down conditions, and overall technical quality. Casework was evaluated for timeliness, adherence to good radiation safety practices, references to appropriate regulations, documentation of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other supporting documents, pre licensing visits, peer or supervisory review as indMted, and proper signature authority. The files were checked for retention of necessary documents and supporting data.
The 20 license files selected for review included work by all reviewers. The cross-section sampling included all of the State's major licenses as defined by the State, including the following types of licenses: academic, broad academic, portable gauges, industrial, industrial radiography, medicalinstitutional, nuclear pharmacy, service, and welllogging. Licensing actions included new licenses, renewals, amendments, and terminations. Licensing actions during the review period included 5 new and 72 amendments (including terminations) totaling 77 !! censing actions. A list of the licenses reviewed with case-specific comments can be found in Appendix C.
The review team's evaluation of the State's response to the five recommendations is presented below. Recommendation 9 is presented first since it deals with State activities to evaluate licensing actions that were completed prior to the follow-up review period. The other recommendations which involve areas of improvement in the overall licensing program follow.
Recommendation 9 The review team also recommends that the State begin a self-evaluation of all existing licenses to determine the technical quality and to identify potential health and safety issues. This evaluation should be accomplished as soon as possible to identify and correct other possible license deficienc!es. In addition, the State should ask the licensees to supply copies of any missing documents that should be indJded With the application (Section 3.4 of the 1998 report).
Current Status in response to this recommendation, RCP staff initiated a comprehensive review of all licenses to ensure technical quality and to verify that no health and safety issues exist. Forty-eight priority one licenses have been reviewed by Kansas staff. Other licenses are being completely reviewed whenever any license actions, inspections, or renewals are processed. There are less than 200 licenses stillin need of re-evaluation, but with the State's two-year renewal frequency, these licenses should all be re-evaluated within the next two years.
The review team evaluated nine licenses from the 1998 in,tPEP review identified as having inconsistencies, being incomplete, or missing documentation. Of these licenses, eight had l
)
f n
~
Kansas Follow-Up Final Report Page 3 been reviewed and noted corrections were documented in the files. The ninth file was also reviewed by the State and no corrections were required. Alllicenses evaluated by the team had received a comprehensive review by the State and this review was documented in each file with a checklist. The licenses reviewed by the team to observe the State's progress with this recommendation are listed in Appendix C.
Based on the follow-up review, the team considers this recommendation open until the remaining licenses have received a thorough review and evaluation. The RCP Chief anticipates the date of completion for this recommendation is June 2000.
Recommendation 8 The review team recommends that program management consider increasing supervisory oversight to ensure that all peitinent items are adequately and properly addressed during the review process to provide quality assurance and to improve the technical quality of licenses (Section 3.4 of the 1998 report).
Current Status During the review period, only six of the licenses reviewed were completed by licensing staff.
j The remainder were completed by the RCP Chief. Due to staff tumover and the fact that newly hired staff members are not yet fully trained and qualified, the RCP Chief is currently assigning nearly alllicensing actions to himself. The actions perfomied by the staff were reviewed by management and the supportive documentation was available in each file. The management oversight included a complete review of the lawnse and also the current licensing action.
Until new staff are fully tre led and qualified to independently to perform licensing actions, the team considers this recommendation to be open.
Recommendation 10:
The review team recommends that Radiation Control Staff update the license guidance to address and parallel the current Kansas Radiation Protection Regulations to assist in the consistency and accuracy of the license review process (Section 3.4 of the 1998 report).
Current Status:
License guidance has been written and revised for four categories of the " Guide for the Preparation of Applications for Radioactive Materials Licenses." These guides were based on the NRC's " Consolidated Guidance About Material Licenses." Current Kansas regulations were
. referenced in these documents. Standard license conditions have also been revised to adapt applicable Kansas regulations. These four guides represent a majority of the type of Kansas radioactive materiallicenses. Other specialized licenses will be reviewed using NRC NUREG-1556 reference guidance. The review team evaluated this guidance and found it adequate.
l Based on the follow-up review, the team considers this recommendation closed.
u6
1 Kansas Follow-Up Final Report Page 4 Recommendation 11:
The review team recommends that licensing checklists be developed, used, and retained in the file to ensure that all elements of the application have been submitted and that the license is complete (Section 3.4 of the 1998 report).
Current Status:
Two checklists have been developed and are available for use during the licensing process.
One checklist is used to ensure that all documentation is in the file and that references are complete and accurate. This checklist was used during the comprehensive review of the incenses and placed in each file. The other checklist is a detailed list for use in the review of newlicenses and renewals. It contains guidance for reviewing items from the license application. The review team observed the use of this checklist in the review of the new and renewallicenses. The review team evaluated these checklists and f Jund them to be adequate.
In evaluating the thoroughness and completeness of the licenses, the team noted that a new medicallicense requested the use of Xenon-133, but there were no calculations for air concentrations in controlled or uncontrolled areas in the application Calculations involving clearance times in case of an accidental release were also absent. Appendix M of the Kansas licensing guide for medical programs states that these calculations must be submitted in the application. The license was issued without requesting this information. Although the review team believed that this item should have been addressed during the license process, Kansas' position is that the licensing guide is a guide and that they determine on a case-by-case basis if submitted information is sufficient. The review team accepts for this particular action, Kansas' position that no calculation is necessary based on the State's knowledge of the licensee and the guantity of xenon possessed under the license.
Lack of documentation was noted in two additional cases during the follow-up review. Missing telephone memoranda documentation related to deficiencies noted by the reviewer were not in the licensing file. The licensee responded appropriately to the deficiencies.
Based on the follow up review, the team notes that the State has developed appropriate checklists, however, completeness of licensing actions continues to need improvement. The majority of the licensing actions completed during the review period were performed by the RCP Chief. The review team discussed with RCP management the difficulties preser. fed to the program because of the interim reliance on the RCP Chief forcompleting the majority of the licensing actions. A " supervisory" review is not possible at this time, and until newly hired staff are fully trained and qualified to perform independent work, the program needs to examine other means to provide a supervisory or quality assurance review to he p ensure all licensing actions are complete and of acceptable quality. Due to the reliance on the RCP Chief for licensing, the lack of secondary reviews for most of the licensing actions completed during the review period, and the need to train staff to perform licensing actions, the team is closing the 1998 recommendation and is making a new recommendation as follows:
The review team recommends that the State complete a thorough review as well as a supervisory or quality assurance review of all licensing actions to ensure that each license is complete in accordance with Kansas guidance.
]
Kansas Follow-Up Final Report Page 5 Recommendation 12:
The review team recommends that the State place docuinentation of all pre-licensing visits in the appropriate licensing file (Section 3.4 of the 1998 report).
Current Status Kansas has not conducted a pre-licensing visit since the 1998 IMPEP review. RCP management indicated that procedures involving pre-licensing visits have been developed and staff has been trained. These visits will be documented and placed in the appropriate licensing file. The review team considers the approach to this recommendation satisfactory.
Based on the follow-up review, the team considers this recommendation closed.
The review team concludes that the licensing program has shown improvement since the 1998 IMPEP review. However, due to the need to complete the self evaluation of existing licenses, the reliance on the RCP Chief forlicensing, the current difficulty faced by the program to i
complete a supervisory or quality assurance review on alllicensing actions, and the need to train staff to perform licensing actions, the review team recommends that Kansas' performance with respect to the indicator Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, continues to be found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.
l 3.0
SUMMARY
The follow-up review team found Kansas' performance in responding to and resolving the five recommendations involving the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, to be acceptable with the exception of Recommendations 8 and 9. Recommendations 8 and 9 discussed the need to complete a self-evaluation of all existing licenses and for continued management oversight of the licensing program as new staff take over the responsibilities. A new recommendation was made involving completing supervisory or quality assurance reviews of licensing actions to ensure thoroughness.
The follow-up review team concludes that the licensing program has made progress, but it was noted that the technical quality of licensing actions is stillin need of improvement. The use of a thorough supervisory or quality assurance review should further increase the technical quality of licensing actions. The follow-up review team recommends that the Kansas Agreement State program receive a fullIMPEP review in FY 2002. The State suggested and the team agreed that the next periodic meeting could take place in June 2000. At that time, the status of the
%:dn Etions to train new staff and to complete the self evaluation of the remaining licenses can Le discussed.
Below is a summary list of open recommendations from the 1998 report involving the technical quality of licensing actions at:d one new recommendation from this follow-up review.
Kansas Follow Up Final Report Page 6 Recommendations involving the Technical Quality of Licensing Actions:
Recommendation 8, Section 3.4 of the 1998 report The review team recommends that program management consider increasing supervisory oversight to ensure that all pertinent items are adequately and property addressed during the review process to provide quality assurance and to improve the technical quality of licenses.
Recommendation 9, Section 3.4 of the 1998 report The review team also recommends that the State begin a self-evaluation of all existing licenses to determine the technical quality and to identify potential health and safety issues. This evaluation should be accomplished as soon as possible to identify and correct other possible license deficiencies. In addition, the State should ask the licensees to supply copies of any missing documents that should be included with the application.
i New recommendation from Section 2.1 i
The review team recommends that the State complete a thorough review as well as a supervisory or quality assurance review of alllicensing actions to ensure that each I
license is complete in accordance with Kansas guidance.
Other recommendations the team considers open (see Appendix B):
Recommendation 7, Section 3.3 of the 1998 report The review team recommends that the State document a training and qualifications program equivalent to that contained in *NRC/OAS Training Working Group Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs," as appropriate, assess the current training needs of all radioactive materials staff, and provide the necessary,
training to ensure that all staff are properly trained to complete assigned tasks.
i-LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A iMPEP Follow-up Review Team Members Appendix B Status of Recommendations from the Previous Review Appendix C Licensing Casework Reviews Attachment Kansas' Response to Draft Follow-up IMPEP Report
' Dated August 16,1999
)
l APPENDIX A iMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Area of Responsibility Duncan White Team Leader Linda McLean, R.V.
Regional State Agreements Officer Jared Thompson, Arkansas Technical Quality of Licensing Actions
l APPENDi'i.'4 STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS REVIEW Recommendation 1 Based on the record of overdue inspections during the review period, the review team recommends: (1) that Kansas heightens its management oversight of the inspection due dates of core licenses (Priority 1,2, and 3 licensees) to ensure inspections are performed at the required frequencies; and (2) that the new inspection tracking system currently under development include provisions for the flagging initial inspections at an early date to ensure they are inspected within six months of the date of license issuance. In addition, Kansas should consider updating procedure R.S.-7 to incorporate procedures on initial inspections as stated in IMC 2800, Section 04.03a (Section 3.1 of the 1998 repoit).
Current Status Kansas responded to this recommendation stating that no recurrence of inspection backlog for core licenses has resulted since the 1998 IMPEP review. As a result of increased management oversight, inspections are assigned on a quarterly basis to specific inspectors and their inspection completion status is tracked on a monthly basis. The RCP demonstrated the new inspection tracking system for the review team, particularly the system's capabilities for assigning inspection priorities for new licensees. Kansas management also indicated that Procedure R.S.-7 has been updated to include the use of the new inspection tracking system and incorporate procedures for initialinspections consistent with NRC's inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800.
It is recommended that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.
Recommendation 2 The review team recommends that the State's ' inspection Priority System" be revised for reciprocity inspections to correspond to the inspection goals in IMC 1220 (Section 3.1 of the 1998 report).
Current Status The State responded to this recommendation indicating that their priority system for reciprocity inspections has been revised to correspond with the inspection goals in IMC 1220. The team noted during the follow-up review that the State's inspection tracking system has the capabi!!ty to track reciprocity inspections.
i It is recommended that this item be verified at the next IMPEP review.
Kansas Follow-up Final Report Page B.2 i
Appendix B Recommendation 3 The review team recommends the State conduct reciprocity inspections at intervals equal to those stated in IMC 1220 (Section 3.1 of the 1998 report).
Current Status The State responded to this recommendation noting that significant improvement has been made in conducing reciprocity inspections in accordance with the frequencies in IMC 1220.
Kansas management did indicate that the frequency of reciprocity inspections still did not meet the goals in IMC 1220 due to the large number of radiography and well logging licensees that work in the southwest section of the State. The combination of the transient nature of industrial radiography and well logging work and the long travel distance from RCP's offices in Topeka (more than five hours) to the portions of the State where the oil and gas fields are located make
. It difficult to inspect these licensees while in Kansas jurisdiction. The review team discussed with Kansas management possible altematives to inspecting these licensees in the field. The review team concluded that based on the effort put forth by RCP and the circumstances unique to the State, that the approach taken by the State is satisfactory.
i lt is recommended that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.
flecommendation. 4
-The review team recommends that the inspection report form be strengthened by I
including names of individuals contacted and interviewed in greater detail (Section 3.2 of the 1998 report).
Curreni Status The team noted during this follow-up review that since January 1999, the RCP's inspection reports are completed electronically on the Radioactive Materials Database. The RCP
' demonstrated the database which included fields to enter the information regarding the individuals contacted during inspections and present during the exit meeting.
It is recommended that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.
Recommendation 5 The review team recommends that Kansas provide direction to the inspection staff to help them identify poor licensee performance, identify when licensee root cause evaluations should be conducted, and to help them assess licensee root cause evaluations. Staff members' skills could also be improved by attending a training course that teaches these techniques as part of the inspection qualification process (Section 3.2 of the 1998 report).
l
y i
1
'_4 a
('L>
Kansas Follow-up Final Report.
Page B.3 J
Appendix B.
l~
Current Status l
' n response to this recommendation, the. State's Radioactive Materials Database was designed i
to track and trend items of noncompliance. The RCP demonstrated this capability to the review
. team during this review using the existing inspections already entered in the database. With regard to training staff, Kansas has been actively working with area nuclear power plants to
' provide root course analysis training. The review team discussed other attematives employed i
by other States to obtain root cause training, including the use of law enforcement organizations that would employ similar techniques in their work.
. The review team also noted that increased emphasis on identifying poor licensee performance has resulted in the RCP taking escalated enforcement action against three licensees which
- resulted in the issuance of civil penalties.
I It is recommended that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.
. Recommendation 6 The review team recommends that the State continue to maintain management oversight of the inspection program (Section 3.2 of the 1998 report).
Current Status The review team noted that Kansas management has provided and continues to provide oversight of the inspection program through the funding and completion of the database system, the prompt hiring of two individuals to replace two individuals who are no longer in the RCP, and funding and aggressively enrolling individuals in training courses.
j lt is recommended that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.
i
~
' Recommendation 7 1
The review team recommends that the State document a training and qualifications program equivalent to that contained in "NRC/OAS Training Working Group
)
Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs," as appropriate, assess the i
current training needs of all radioactive materials staff, and provide the necessary training to ensure that all staff are properly trained to complete assigned tasks (Section i
3.3 of the 1998 report).
Current Status J The RCP Chief indicated during discussions with the review team that Kansas has documented a training program based on the NRC/OAS Working Group report. Since the 1998 review, the Kansas program had two experienced individuals leave the program. Both individuals were replaced with personnel experienced in radiation safety. One individual has extensive experience as a health physicist in the nuclear power industry and the other individual is an experienced welllogger and geologist. Both individuals have attended a number of radioactive materials training courses since joining the State. One of the newly hired individuals will be
]
m Kansas Follow up Final Report Page B.4 Appendix B primarily assigned to licensing tasks and the other to inspection. In addition to the training courses, both individuals are currently receiving on-the job experience by working with experienced inspectors and reviewers. The RCP Ch!ef expects the two newly hired individuals to complete their training next year. The RCP has also used a third individual currently assigned to RCP's x-ray program with radioactive materials experience to assist with inspection and licensing while the two newest hires are trained.
The review team considers this recommendation to be open until the two newly hired individuals have completed their training.
Recommendation 13 The review team recommends that the State revise their incident response procedures to conform with OSP procedure, SA 300, including medical events (Section 3.5 of the 1998 report).
Current Statut:
RCP management commented that the State has revised R.S.-47 Emergency Response Documentation" to conform with OSP procedure, SA-300. Though the team did not review this revised procedure, the performance of the State in responding to incidents which have occurred since the last review has conformed to SA-300.
It is recommended that this item be verified at the next IMPEP review.
Recommendation 14 The review team recommends that a system be established to track the progress of incident investigations and to verify that each investigation is evaluated by management, that all reporting requirements are met, that follow-up actions and close-out information are documented (Section 3.5 of the 1998 report).
Current Status l
RCP management commented that the State has revised R.S.-47
- Emergency Response Documentation" to require management evaluation, met all reporting requirements and documentation of follow-up and close-out actions. Though the team did not review this revised procedure, the performance of the State in responding to incidents which have occurred since the last review has met the objectives detailed in this recommendation.
it is recommended that this item be verified at the next IMPEP review.
y
' Kansas Follow up Final Report Page B.5 Appendix B Recommendation 15 The review team recommends that theinspection procedure be revised to include narrative documentation of the inspector's review of incidents and descriptions of the licensee's corrective actions (Section 3.5 of the 1998 report).
Current Status During its review of the State's Radioactive Materials Database, the review team noted that the inspection checklist includes a specific item for documenting the review of incidents and corrective actions.
)
It is recommerided that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.
Recommendation 16 i
The review team recommends that State send copies of final close-out reports to the NRC in accordance with OSP procedure, " Reporting Materials Events - SA 300" 1
(Section 3.5 of 1998 report).
Current Status The review team queried the Nuclear Materials Events Database and noted that close out reports have been submitted as required. The RCP has also participated in NRC Operations Briefings regarding two incidents, one of which is classified as an Abnormal Occurrence.
It is recommended that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.
Recommendation 17 The review team recommends that the State review and amend all remaining industrial radiography licenses with license conditions necessar/ to meet the
- Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment" requirement, and expedite adoption of the rule which was due January 10,1994 (Section 4.1.2 of the 1998 report).
Current Status -
The review team reviewed all radiography licenses and determined that all were amended to include a license condition to meet the " Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiography Equipment" rule. The RCP Chief indicated that the adoption of the 1997 revision to 10 CFR Part 34 for the Kansas Radiation Protection Regulations, which includes the above referenced requirement, is the next priority in its regulatory agenda.
It is recommended that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.
2 Kansas Follow-up Final' Report Page B.6 Appendix B Recommendation 18 The review team recommends that the State compare the Kansas regulations involved
. with the " Low Level Radioactive Waste Shipment Manifest information and Reporting" and " Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria" amendments against the final NRC rules and make any necessary changes to ensure compatibility (Section 4.1.2 of the 1998 report).
Current Status The RCP Chief stated that staff have reviewed both regulations and no compatibility issues were identified with Kansas regulations.
It is recommended that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.
Suaaestions During the follow up review, the team discussed the two suggestions from the previous review i
which included: (1) adhering to the policy of annual inspection accompaniments; and (2) assessing whether the staffing levels in the radioactive materials program was a contributing factor to the program deficiencies. Both suggestions were adopted by the RCP. The actions taken on the two suggestions were acceptable to the follow-up review team.
J
t APPENDIX C LICENSING CASEWORK REVIEWS NOTE: ALL LICENSING ACTIONS LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM CASEWORK REVIEWED TO OBSERVE PROGRESS IN CORRECTING DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED AT THE 1998 REVIEW File No.: 1 Licensee: Line Medical, Inc.
License No.: 20-B708-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas Amendment No.: 4 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 06/23/98 License Reviewer: VC Comment:
a)
This amendment corrected errors noted during the 1998 review.
File No.: 2 Licensee: University of Kansas License No.: 38-C019-01 Location: Lawrence, Kansas Amendment No.: 55 License Type: Academic-Broad Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 11/16/98 License Reviewer: TC Comment:
a)
This amendment corrected errors noted during the 1998 review.
File No.: 3 Licensee: Donna Lee Oil Company License No.: 27-B595-01 Location: Independence, Kansas Amendment No.: 8 License Type: Well Logging Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 8/21/97 License Reviewer: JJ Comments:
a)
This amendment was reviewed during the 1998 IMPEP and concerns were noted regarding the transfer / change in ownership. Memorandum dated 5/5/99 documents a review of the IMPEP observations.
b)
The application from the new owner indicated that a radiation protection program was not applicable. This was a tie-down condition for this amendment. This tie-down is in conflict with the original appt,ication that Indicates a radiation protection program will be impicmented it is unclearif this licensee has a radiation protection program.
te
.y, L
Kansas Follow-up Final Report Page C.2 Licensing Casework Reviews File No.: 4 Licensee: North American NDT, Inc.
License No.: 21-8715-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas Amendment No.: 3 License Type: Industrial Radiography Type of Action: Termination Date issued: 4/09/99 License Reviewer: DG Comment:
a)
It was noted during the 1998 review that this license did not have the standard license condition forindustrial radiography equipment. A draft amendment dated 8/13/98 was in the file, but it is not clear if the amendment was ever issued. The license was subsequently terminated.
File No.: 5 Licensee: Providence Medical Center License No.: 19-C182-01 Location: Kansas City, Kansas Amendment No.: 54,55 License Type: Medical Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 8/27/98,1/22/99 License Reviewer: VC Comments:
a)
It was noted in the 1998 review that this license did not have a Quality Management Program (OMP) for therapeutic use. It was determined during the follow up review that a OMP is not required by Kansas regulations.
b)
No documentation of a secondary review of these amendments.
File No.: 6 Licensee: Kansas State University License No.: 38-C01101 Location: Manhattan, Kansas Amendment No.: 62 License Type: Academic-Broad A Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 7/10/98 License Reviewer: VC Comment:
a)
This amendment corrected the licensing error noted during the 1998 review.
File No.: 7 Licensee: Eagle PicherIndustries License No.: 25-B561-01 Location: Lonexa, Kansas -
Amendment No.: 13 License Type: Industrial Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 8/11/98 License Reviewer: VC Comment:
a)
This amendment corrected a licensing error noted during the 1998 review.
?..
e Kansas Follow-up Final Report Page C.3 Ucensing Casework Reviews File No.: 8 Licensee: Taylor Forge Engineered Systems, Inc.
License No.: 21-B108-01 Location: Paola, Kansas Amendment No.: 25 License Type: Industrial Radiography Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 10/8/98 License Reviewer: DG Comment:
a)
This amendment corrected the licensing error noted during the 1998 review.
File No.: 9 Licensee: Syncor Intemational, Inc.
License No.: 20-C495-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas Amendment No.: 22 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 9/04/97 License Reviewer: BL Comments:
a)
Paperwork related to this amendment was not in the file during the 1998 review.
Paperwork was received from licensee and placed in the file.
- b)
A telephone memorandum conceming licensing deficiencies is missing from the file.
The licensee responded to deficiencies in a letter dated 2/25/99.
1 NEW ACTIONS REVIEWED BY THE TEAM File No.: 10 Licensee: Line Medical, Inc.
License No.: 20 B708-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas Amendment No.: 5 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 11/10/98 License Reviewer: DG File No.: 11 Licensee' <ansas State University License No.: 38-C011-01 Location: Manhattan, Kansas Amendment No.: 63,64 License Type: Academic-Broad A Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 3/29/99,6/1/99 License Reviewer: VC Comment:
a)
No documentation of a secondary review of these amendments.
w Kansas Follsw-up Final Report Page C.4 Ucensing Casework Reviews File No.12 Licensee: Eagle PicherIndustries:
License No.: 25-B561-01 Location: Lonexa, Kansas -
. Amendment No.: 14,15 License Type: Industrial Type of Acilon: Amendment c Date issued: 1/27/99,6/1/99 License Reviewer: VC l
Comment:
a)
No documentation of a secondary review of these amendments.
' File No.13 Licensse: Benjamin S. Friesen, Ph.D.
License No.: 33-C016-01 4
Location: Lawrence, Kansas Amendment No.: 17 License Type: Service Type of_ Action: Termination Date issued: 6/01/99 License Reviewer: VC
' Comments:
a)
. No documentation of receipt of the source from the licensed recipient. The State determined that they had additionalinformation to demonstrate transfer of the source's supportingissuance of termination.
b)
No documentation of a secondary review to this amendment.
File No.: 14 Licensee: Phillips Pipe Line Company License No.: 22-B325-01
)
Location: Bartlesville, Oklahoma Amendment No.: 21
' License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 3/4/99 License Reviewer: VC
' Comment:
a)
No documentation of a secondary review to this amendment.
File No.: 15 Licensee: Washbum University License No.: 31-B303-01 Location: Topeka, Kansas Amendment No.: 16 LicenseType: Academic Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 6/7/99 License Reviewer: VC Comment:
a)
No documentation of a secondary review to this amendment.
File No.: 16
~ Licensee: City of Overland Park License No.: 22-B716-01 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 6/3/99 License Reviewer: VC i
i Comment:
a)
No documentation of a secondary review to this amendment.
r j
o
~
Kansas Follow-up Final Report Page C.5 Licensing Casework Reviews.
File No.: 17 Licensee: Longview Inspection License No.: 21-B126-01 Location: Shawness, Kansas Amendment No.: 25 License Type: Industrial Radiography Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 3/2/99 License Reviewer: VC Comment:
a)
No documentation of a secondary review to this amendment.
File No.: 18 Licensee: Glickman, Inc.
License No.: 22 8775-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas Amendment No.: New License Type: Portable Gauge.
Type of Action: New Date issued: 2/23/99 -
License Reviewer: DG File No.: 19 Licensee: Sverdrup Environmental, Inc.
License No.: 22-B777-01 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Amendment No.: New License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: New Date issued: 3/04/99 License Reviewer: VC File No.: 20 Licensee: Kansas Heart Hospital License No.: 19-B771-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas Amendment No.: New License Type: Medical Type of Action: New Date issued: 2/8/99 License Reviewer: VC Comments:
a)-
No documentation of a secondary review.
b)
Missing telephone memorandum conceming licensing deficiencies. The licensee l
responded to deficiencies in a letter dated 1/22 39.
j c)
The license requested the use of Xenon-133, however, there were no calculations for air j
concentrations in controlled or uncontrolled areas in the application. Calculations involving clearance times in case of an accidental release were also absent. The j
license was issued without requesting this information. The was discussed with the l
State and they determined no calculations were necessary for the activity being l
licensed.
I
)
"/
l.
l KANSAS 3
~
~
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT T7 BILL GRAVES, GOVERNOR Q~
Clyde D:Graeber, Secretary
=
w August 16,1999 5:s ro o
PAUL H, LOHAUS, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (03H20)
Ic UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r?
e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 g
Dear Mr. Lohaus:
This is to acknowledge your draft report dated July 28,1999, of the follow-up Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) of Kansas Radiation Control Program on June 15-17,1999. The reviewed findings were discussed with me and my staff. We feel that the following comments would make the report reflect a truer picture of the action taken by our program. We suggest the following comments be included in the report.
1.
Page 1 paragraph 1, states " Inspection indicator". This should be Licensing.
2.
Page 2 under Current Status. We had less than 200 licensees left.
3.
Page 3 paragraph 1, one file had inconsistencies. Which one? What are they? This is not clear.
4.
Page 3 number 8, There needs to be more explanation as to why this is being left open. It appears by reading it that it should be closed.
5.
Page 4, What is the point of the comments about the commercial distribution condition?
We can put whatever conditions we feel that are warranted in a license. I do not feel that this is a problem worth noting in this report.
6.
Page 4, I disagree with the comment about Xenon-133. Our licensing guide is a guide and y e have the right to determine if the submitted information is sufficient and bued upon our knowledge, no calculations are needed for the unit being licensed.
7.
Appendix B number 2, The comments under the current status support closing this item.
In addition, the Radiation Control Program is still waiting for the tesults of the MRB's l
Division of Environment, Bureau of Air and Radiation (785) 296-1560 Radiation Control Program, Forbes Field, Bldg. 283 FAX (785) 296-0984 Topeka, KS 66620-0001 Printed on Recycled Paper MO '6 d60 ( { T' d /f'
E
._ u Ot1 4
~ directive to evaluate the NRC position on reciprocity priorities.
e 8.
Appendix B number 3, The Radiation Control Program does not have the options that the NRC has to inspect home offices etc.
9.
Appendix B' number 13 & 14, The comments made by the team support closing these items.
10.
Appendix C number 3, The tie-down clearly requires compliance with the most restrictive of the Regulations, License statements made by the licensee. The comment should clearly state that the confusion is with the IMPEP reviewer and not the Radiation Control Program. This was discussed with the team at length.
' l 1.
Mppendix C number 13, The information to close this file was obtained from the University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. These were two spent check sources.
r 12.
Appendix C number 19, See number 5.
13.
1 Appendix C number 20, I disagree with this comment, see number 6.
Paul, all of the recommendations which are being closed say that they should be closed at the
. next IMPEP. It was our understanding from the exit review that these would be closed now. I feel since we !. ave met the expectations and the follow-up team verified this, they should be closed now.
I also feel that the following strengths should be noted in the report based upon the comments made by the IMPEP follow-up teem. The Radioactive Materirls Database, for tracking and trending capability exceeds expectations. Our Licensing Checklists and Licensing Guides,
' improved efficiency as well as detail information, the team took copies to improve their own j
programs.
Paul, we. appreciate the support the NRC has given us during this process. If further information i
'or clarification is needed please do not hesitate to cordact me at 785-296-1561.
Sincerel,
h]
Vick L. Cooper, Chief Radiation Control Program
' Bureau Of Air and Radiation ii Division of Environment, Burean of Air and Radiation (785) 296 1560 Radiation Control Program, Forben Field, Bldg. 283 FAX (785)296-0984 3
.. Topeka, KS 66620-000!
Trinted on Recycled Paper y 3 1:
a