ML20236K685
| ML20236K685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/19/1998 |
| From: | Myers J NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Stoeckel M RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807100043 | |
| Download: ML20236K685 (11) | |
Text
_
'JUN 191998 l
Marie Stoeckel, Chief Division of Occupational & Radiological Health Department of Health l
3 Capitol Hill, Room 206 Providence, RI 02908-5097
Dear Ms. Stoeckel:
As you are aware, NRC is using the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program l
(IMPEP) for the evaluation of Agreement State Programs. I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Rhode Island program scheduled for the week of July 27 - 30,1998.
The team willinclude Duncan White, Regional State Agreements Officer, NRC Region 1, and Steven Gavitt, Chief, Radioactive Materials Section, New York State Health Department.
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 I
printed form. I ask that you send your responses by internet to JHM@NRC. GOV or return the disk to me by July 10,1998. 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 questionnaire is the document " Materials Requested to Be Available for l
the Onsite Portion of an IMPEP Review." We encourage States to have the items listed
.k 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 Rhode Island program un Thursday, July 30, 1998.
If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 415-2328.
9907100043 980619 I
M4 PDR STPRO ESGRPDR James H. Myers, Team Leader
/
g Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP05) ' DCD (YES);
SDroggitis
,,,,0,_",,,
DWhite, RI SGavitt, NYSD0H n 6 E. y u m p"a]t pg g Rhode Island File L
.u..--
l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\RilMPEP.WPD, G:\\KXS\\lMPQUE97.KNS T+ receive e copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure
'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure 'N' = No cooy
_ 0.
_VMSP:DD -
r -5 PSP:D
-l l
l
)
OFFICE e aqpSP L, NAME.
/W f8FN W "
i RHLohaus JLBangart DATE-06/ /98
' 06/lT/98 06//f/98 L 3()(ji j OSP FILE CODE: SP:AG-24
t@ WV
[
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- \\,,,,,l*
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 0001 June 19, 1998 Marie Stoeckel, Chief Division of Occupational & Radiological Health Department of Health 3 Capitol Hill, Room 206 i
Providence, RI 02908-5097
Dear Ms. Stoeckel:
As you are aware, NRC is using the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program J
(IMPEP) for the evaluation of Agreement State Programs. I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review ci the Rhode Island program scheduled for the week of July 27 - 30,1998.
The team will include Duncan White, Regional State Agreements Officer, NRC Region 1, and Steven Gavitt, Chief, Radioactive Materials Section, New York State Health Department.
Enclosed is the document," Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaire." The questionnaire is being furnished to you on mmputer disk as well as in printed form. I ask that you send your responses by internet to JHM@NRC. GOV or return the disk to me by July 10,1998. 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 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 I
I request that you set up an appointment with the appropriate State Senior Management Official j
to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the Rhode Island program on Thursday, July 30, l
1998.
j If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 415-2328.
I Sincerely, j
D A
James H. Mye Team Leader Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated t
i 1
t I
l 1
Approved by OMB' No. 3150-0183 Expires 5/31/2001 INTEGRATED 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 Materials insoection Proaram 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. The list should 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 questionnaire.
3 Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the State / Region is inspecting more or less frequently than called for in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 and state the reason for the change.
i 4.
Please complete the following table for licensees granted reciprocity during the reporting
. period.
1 Estimated burden per response to comply 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 i
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.
l
)
L __ --_ _ -
-D
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 j
YR YR
]
YR YR j
l YR YR 3
YR YR YR YR YR YR 4
All Other 5.
Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographer 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.
11.
Technical Quality of Inspections 7.
What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period?
8.
Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments i
made during the review period. Include:
insoector Supervisor License Cat.
Qate I
2 i
t L____._____________________
l 9.
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.
10.
Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are allinstruments properly calibrated at the present time?
lil.
Technical Staffina and Trai.kg r
l 11.
Please provide a s' affing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested format L
below, of the profusional (technical) person-years of effort applied to the I
agreement or ravoactive material program by individual. Include the name, l
position, and, fn Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in the following l
areas: adminit ation, materials licensing & compliance, emergency response, l
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 of Effort FTE%
12.
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.
i l
13.
Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the qualification requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection staff (for NRC, inspection Manual Chapters 1246; for Agreement States, please describe your qualifications requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For i
i-each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a f
tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.
l 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.
l IV.
TechnicalQualityof Licensina Acticns 16.
Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, received a major amendment, were terminated, decommissioned, submitted a bankruptcy notification or renewed in this period. Also identify any new or
" amended licenses that now require emergency plans.
17.
Discuss any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during the review period.
3
L l
18.
What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?
19.
For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type, any renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.
V.
Resoonses to incidents and Allegations 20.
Please provide a list of the reportable incidents (i.e., medical misadministration, overexposure, 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 i
Agreement States for additional guidance.) that occurred in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to NRC need not be repeated (i.e., those submitted under OMB clearance number 3150-0178, Nuclear Material Events Database). The list should be in the following format:
Licensee Name License #
Date of incident / Report Tvoe of incident 21.
During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source failure or approved operating procedures that were deficient? If so, how and when were other State /NRC licensees who might be affected notified? For States, was timely notification made to NRC7 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 i
possible generic design deficiency? Please provide details for each case.
23.
In the period covered by this review, were there any cases involving possible wrongdoing that were reviewed or are presently undergoing review? If so, please describe the circumstances for each case.
24.
Identify any changes to your procedures for handling allegations that occurred during the period of this review.
a.
For Agreement States, please identify any allegations referred to your program by the NRC that have not been closed.
l 4
l L_:_-____-_______________-__-
i l
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.
l l
- 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 i
which occurred during this review period.
l B. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1.
Legislation and Proaram Elements Reauired for Compatibility
- 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 table based on NRC chronology of amendments. Identify those that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and discuss any actions being taken to adopt them. 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 j
promulgation, briefly describe your State's procedures for amending regulations in order to i
maintain compatibility with the NRC, showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.
11.
Sealed Source and Device Proaram
- 31. Prepare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issued during the review period. The table heading should be:
I SS&D Manufacturer, Type of Registry Distributor or Device Date Number Custom User or Source issued 32.
What guides, standards and procedures are used to evaluate registry applications?
33.
Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Sealed Source and Device Program:
l Technical Staffing and Training - A.lli.11-15 l
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.IV.16-18 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 5
l
Ill.
Low-Level Waste Proaram 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 Quality of Inspections - A.ll.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 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 Quality of Inspections - A.ll.7-10 Technical Staffing and Training - A.lli.11-15 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.IV.16-18 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 6
ll
- l lllI llI]!
,1l]ll)il l
)l 1
O TNS EU R T R A T
U S C
7 D
E E T T P AD ODA 4
6 E E 1
4 9
5 6
9 7
7 TA U 9
3 4
9
/
9 6
9 9
7 9
8
/
9 9
/
5
/
9
/
~_
D D 7
/
/
0 1
7
/
/
2 8
9
/
9
/
5
/
2 7
1 1
2 1
2 G
2 1
1 1
/
/
/
/
/
0
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
7 4
f 1
1 1
7 7
1 1
7 8
1 s
t y
n f f n
e la A
isf r
io io m
- o t
ny e
u l
do id ic ir c
ic P
Da t
eg a
o n
E i
I lo a
h u
1 p
q 6
D o
lae r
0 a
n R
a d
e
- 7 i
t ic a n
t g0, F
g 1
t r
9o r
n R
r n
n eM ts g
a a
r i4 la im in 9 h n
io 0
y P
g mt p
1 C
i 7
m e
e0, n
c t
mu5 o
a d
io0 o
n r
m e3 t e g
a 0,
a f
f o
od 3 r5 a
laa k s d 7, n
is r2.
9 rh A
R 4
g3 S
r dt it Co 2
ot ot sg r r d0 o
s r p3 io n
r
- s9, r r o
o n
o o oa A4 oy O
ee g
c s
n 3 Pa o
pr cP C
im rB0.
r N
pt it f
f t
i6 r
P sP e;
n0 s:
m ef 3 t
t e,
t 4
n; ia3 i
Rs a3 g
D A n
ss in0 o
s s
uf n
e n4 d
o I
f T
de 3
es dt r
g i
t r
n o
e3 ic n n i0 n0 mt mn aa dO go at iat D 7 T
n r
ni l
4 c
net t (
r SE E
e o) n7 l 7 ea
- in1, eio RP n
e ea 0
asa r
a P
it r
3 gt ate ind eP Ta rUP r
rP o
ar d s; Li a
f r
mis o,
P,
o nr S
iod U
L sA n;
i P n,
,d:
iu; 0,
nt t
l i0 nn t
l e
i0 0
t U
dla n s
f f
s4 y4 qt n3 ai t
s ao o e s
am M :s s4 oa Q
s R
nue
- im0, c
s en it 0, Mi ga nts mo ai o
n i
in r s d
s
,U egm e0, d
n sa ioa i
u n mr e0, it Re nd anl R
R med m3 g3 a0 m
a2 ym r
it eI inW mt Ga id lets ptud a
u a in3 r
i o a d2 y
r t
O F
a n
c it d aic p
i s la a nr i
ot h
nn i
r os s
t h e F
C yc ct et nt ei f
r d
c n f c 0
nam ea ma ar f u t
r lee aa mr eb e r
r t a aq oa uis f
icr e n ee ia r
PrriM t
AeA DP EP SP SE NP QM Lf Da Dm SM US TP o
E 1
t LBAT
l]
l
=
O TNS EN R A 4
'i T U S C
8 D
E E T T P AD ODA 8
8 E E 8
8 8
9
/
9 0
/
7 9
7 0
T 9
9 0
0 0
0 0
.A U 9
8 9
9
/
99 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
/
9 0
4 2
/
/
/
0
/
.D D 3
/
/
2 6
0
/
/
/
/
/
1 1
3 1
1
/
1 9
1 2
2 2
2
/
/
/
/
1
/
0
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3 3
6 8
1 4
1 6
1 2
2 5
6 8
fo d
- s y
e i
r l
n e
h d
it iA s
in ia t
n o
s p
n g
m e
n so t
it r
. U a
e n
d t
n o
eh s
a ma h
sc du n
m d
r r
e n
c o
go A
n h
a A
oe p
nd nd im bl m
es ls an f
t id F
hc e
e iA; x
Lu ula h o u T
C s
s u
t y r
nt e
s n
d e
ir a
yI e r
ci rl e
on i
a f
t n
s t
f ls ie n
R n
g it E
J di pf R e
m wg a
n oa el t
e r
me a sl e
a r
a e.
i mp M
o m
d m
n yA d
ic s nr ta a r
s r
da gt a n
t e
n t
n f
e o
a t
t d m F'm#
Ln ot a
Se o e e
t s
w i
he y InM miu n
R e
it a de i
aq eg n
u s
bg t
lam s
t f
t n et f
s ir f
4 om u
n eFa o e a e,
l xE mt e
q m
t e
m a e o
t v
Rr s E
ew ge e
meS et la qh r e r
n pr m
Ri m
mE os su Rc ip es e led u
e e
pn n.
r i n o
a r
v sc u o f
ei m
io e
r t
l f
vt ae hp w
ne o
oic it la nq lao h
gl m ein aa eo ne a ia ct Se u
oi c
t ai ae a
r u i
t dc eR q
sRr e
Cm r
r r ir e
t e rR ui S
Acxe Ra dtyp tcC D
et
- o st T
t e
t a
d l
Ee e
neO C
Mr sd i
o an R
ed 1 t in r g Dat ia f
R r
s 7A iM on E
. f t
f P
on ot Rc o
r I f L
o Wa e
r a e
i f
r r g hd ay l
m np o
A e
neA t la yr n
c P
n n r
t e oSh a
r U
y f
R co le io n n s
o e a n d v oe no a
od r r t
t p
c f
a e nn im Po Ai h e o s M
nUa s
c ak ht s nn oe n a g
i f t s
s t
i t
t nt vt R
er ea mm ioo ae Rt laa md lun or a
i cr a
ai eig loo t t r
F co r
le gsin in st F
u4 Lm oip iain i iu wo u
df nq Cm dd mo o e is c
niiao r i f
i c
slu o ah em edd d
C q-,
r fr i
e r
eit t
t of eq ae la e 0t ea ee ef is er e
n icaa a
id f
0 r
RAW CA LRR R
n 1
F' Li PE RD CR i
Il
< a.
MATERIALS REQUESTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE ONSITE PORTION OF AN IMPEP REVIEW ORGANIZATION CHARTS Clean, sized 8% X 11" including names and positions One showing positions from Governor down to Radiation Control Program Director (RCPD) a o One showing positions of current radiation control program with RCPD as Head Equivalent charts for LLRW and mills programs, if applicable o
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 a ' List of open license cases, with date of original request, and dates of follow up actions List of licenses terminated during review period.
a
'a Copy of current log or other document used to track licensing actions a Copy of current log or other document used to track inspections a List of Inspection frequency by license type a Listing or log of allincidents 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 o Records of results of supervisory a Statutos affecting the regulatory authority of accompaniments of inspectors the state program a Emergency plan and communications list l
a Standard license conditions a Procedures for investigating allegations a Technical procedures for licensing, model a Enforcement procedures, including i
licenses, review guides procedures for escalated enforcement, i
a - SS&D review procedures Mverity levels, civil penalties (as applicable)
=
a instrument calibration records a Copies of job descriptions I
.a inspection procedures and guides inspection report forms a
9
_