ML20248M255
| ML20248M255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1998 |
| From: | Obrien T NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Paris R OREGON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806150208 | |
| Download: ML20248M255 (11) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ -_____ - ___. _
l
- y
- x i' 3 Mr; Rty D. Paris, Mantger , WN - 4 1998 -
,~' ' Radiation Protection Services -
L s Oregon State Health Division L
,800 N.E. Oregon Street, Suite 260 L - Portlend, OR 97232.
3
Dear'Dr. Paris:
l . .
L<' .As you are aware, NRC is using the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program l - (IMPEP) for the evaluation of Agreement State Programs. Per our discussion, I will be the
= team leader for the IMPEP revlew cf Oregon. The Oregon State Health Division program )
- review is scheduled for August 10-14,1998. The team includes Patricia Holahan, Acting Chief, {
Operations Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety; Richard Woodruff, l Regional State' Agreements Officer, NRC Region 2; and Donald Sunn, Supervising Health Physicist, Enforcement and Compliance, State of California.
.. .. a P
~ Enclosed is the document, " Integrated Meterials Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaire " The questionnaire is being fumished to you on a computer disk in Wordperfect 6.1 format as well as in printed form. I ask that you send your responses by Intemet (TJO@NRC. GOV) or retum 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 and submit the document by tha due date.
L 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, PMaterials 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, t
I request that you set up an appointment W.h the appropriate management official to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the Oregon program on August 14,1998.
.p,
> If you have questions, please call me at 301-415-2308.
. ' Sincerely, v Original. Signed by: 7 I
Y3 h p- g*j-** '
Thomas J. O'Brien, Team Leader (
Office of State Programs i M t. 3 ~ Enclosurt,s:
" ki LAs stated '
Distnbution 9db DlR RF ^
T DCD (SP06) '
I Y SDroggitis . ,
PDR(YES.f_ NO )
@[j-- RWoodruff, Ril ' '
J p" ;! rad PHolahan, NMSS" .
DBunn, CA' br o# ' ' '
. Oregon FfeL .
4 f DOCUMENT NAME: G:\TJO\ OREGON.LTR , <
n m.m . o or== w w w.ine inm. w c e d 9 a.m.mm.nnneu Mr car e u.em.nanciou. v econ OFFICE OSP , l' OE"$ 1
- l @bh .l -l J NAME- TO'Brien
- nbidf/ PHLohahs RLBdhgart
DATE 06/1191i 06/ % /98 06/4 /98-9B061JO208 950604 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-23; H POR STPRO E300R YDR N -._- _ .-__ _ _ _________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ____d
l.
pn uto g t UNITED STATE 3
- }
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001
% # June 4, 1998 Mr. Ray D. Pans, Manager Radiation Protection Services Oregon State Health Division 800 N.E. Oregon Street, Suite 260 i Portland, OR 97232 l
Dear Dr. Paris:
As you are aware, NRC is using the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) for the evaluation of Agreement Stdte Programs. Per our discussion, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of Oregon. The Oregon State Health Division program review is scheduled for August 10-14,1998. The team includes Patricia Holahan, Acting Chief, Operations Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety; Richard Woodruff, i
Regional State Agreements Officer, NRC Region 2; and Donald Bunn, Supervising Health l Physicist, Enforcement and Compliance, State of Califomia.
Enclosed is the document," Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program l Questionnaire." The questionnaire is being furnished to you on a computer disk in Wordperfect 6.1 format as well as in printed form. I ask that you send your responses by Intemet (TJO@NRC. GOV) or retum the disk to me by July 10,1998. I am sending the document and l disk in advance of the IMPEP review in order to provide time for you to allocate the staff
! resources necessary to complete and submit the document by the due date.
l Part A of the questionnaire contains questions on tha 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 l Onsite Portion of an IMPEP Review." We encourage States to have the items listed prepared j prior to the IMPEP team's arrival.
I request that you set up an appointment with the appropriate management officiPI to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the Oregon program on August 14,1998. 1 j If you have questions, please call me at 301-415-2308.
l- Sin ely, l l T
[
Thomas O'Brien, Team Leader Office of tafe Programs l
Enclosures:
As stated
Approved by OMB' No. 3150-0183 Expires 5/31/2001 IMIEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALU6))QN PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE i
Name of State / Regional Program j
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 inc!ude initial inspections that are overdue.
Insp. Frequency Licensee Name (Years) Due Date Mgnthg_Q/Q I
- 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. ;
i
- 3. Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the Stato/ Region is inspecting more or ! ass frequently than called for in NRC inspection Manual Chapter 2600 and state the reason for the change.
2 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 in4rmation and Records l
Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nucles.r 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 si;onsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the informa6on collection.
L _ _ _ .
- 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 l censees, 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.
II. 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 made r!uring the review period. Include:
Insoector Supervisor License Cat. Date 2
- 9. 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 10. Describe or prnvide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are all instruments properly calibrated at the present time?
lll. Technical Staffina and Trainina
- 11. 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 l offices, the table should be consolidated to include all personnel contributing to l the radioactve 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 i efforts. The table heading should be
Name Position Area of Effort FTE%
- 12. Please provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since tne fast
' review, indicate the degree (s) they received, if cpplicable, and additional training and ysars of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate.
- 13. Please list all professional staff who hcVe 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 each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.
f
- 14. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program during this period.
l l- 15. List the vacant positions in each program, the length of time each position has L
been vacant, and a brief summary of efforts to fill the vacancy.
IV. Technical Quality oLLicensina Aqlims,_
g
- 16. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, received a major amendment, were terminated, decommissioned, submitted a 3
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.
- 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, licente 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 Materiti Event Reporting in Agreement States for additional guidance.) that occurred in the Region / State during the ieview 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 # Qate of incident /Recort Iyoe of Irciden.J
- 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 affseted notified? For States, was timely notification made to NRC7 For Regions, was an sporopriate 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 assesnment of pocsible 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 al.egations referred to your program by the NRC that have not been closed.
4
I.-
VI. General
- 25. Please prepare a summary of the status of the State's or Region's actions taken ;n response to the comments and recommendations following the last review.
L
- 20. 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 wh';h occurreo during this review period.
G. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
- 1. Legislation and Prooram 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 nmandments. Identify those that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were nr. edopted, 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 to {
maintain compatibility with the NRC,' showing the normallength of time anticipated to
{
complete each step. I l
II. Sealed Source and Device Proaram
]
i
- 31. Prepare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issued during the review period. The table heading should be:
SS&D- Manufacturer, Type of Registry Distributor or. - Device Date Numbet Custom User . or Source lasued 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:
Technical Staffing and Training - A.ill.11 - Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.lV.16-18 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 !
5 i
Ill. Low-Level Waste Program
- 34. . Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Low-level Waste Program:
Status of Materials inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 Technical 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 IV. Uranium Mill Proarau
- 35. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Uranium Mill Program:
1 Status of Materials inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 '
Technical Ouality 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 i 1
)
1 l
l t
)
{
i I
l 6 l l l l
l l
O T
NS EU R T RA T U
C S U
D E
ET T
A P DO D A
E T E 1 4 4
9 5 6 6
AU 9 3 4 9 /
9 6 9 5, 7 9 7 7
/
9 9 / 5 5 9 8 DD 7 2
/
7
/
1 0
1 1
/
/
7 2
9/
/
2 2
/
8
/
9
/
/
5 9
/
/ / / / 0 /
1
/
2
/ 0 2 1 1 1 7 / / /
4 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 1 7 8
/
1 t
s y ;
n f f n e r i o t
ny o m -
l a A - o eg i
t e u isf ia ic r c ic P Da l
Id o d iu o n a
E i r
1, n lo a h p q 1
6 D 0 n o lae R a d e : 7 i t
ica t
9 or t s
r g n R t
r a
g0, F g n
r eM 9 h n 0 a n4 l a g a 1 io ty P i p
o C t
e i
a d 7 m a
e ; e0, n o0 imr in n
ncu5 r
- 9. t g a 0, r5 f
a m e3 i i7 t o o od 3 2 rh A R g3 S laa k s f Co r 2.
iot r o n r ;
4 s9, o rt n s
og r dtr r d d0 , on is r p3 N pt io f o t Pa r
o por oa cP A4, C is f
oy O ee s ;
n 3 it 6 m B0.
n;P t
g c s e , t s iP e; n0 :
s r uf n e t ia3 a3 m ef 3 id 34 I
T d (e r g
i n
t o
n4 e3 es dt r D A Rs gon s s g
in0 o f s o s S t n n n 0 mtr c mn aa dQ 4 c net r e no) at e 0 RP ; aen r
i0 P in1, eio i
r it r t
asa E E n7 la 7 ea 3 gt ind i
ea iat e D 7 rUP o , P ,0 o r r f ara dnrs Li eP Tr t
U L mist t i0 s
iP o , S od t in 0
, T, d :
Q U d la n s4 y f u
qt ; n3 0 nt s ao f
ont se isA s n; am i P l
l nn e r s M s; R n c4, s en io , ai s4 s eguie.
t R im0, n e0 dr Re Mi n ga in mo ai d s , ioaU R ymp icta2 0 ym ni oa u n mr t
med m3 g3 a0 id e0 anl a r n sa mi u a i
O F t in3 r d2 a Ga aico a it C ych e os r et s nt r t
s id t
nrr inW ot h id F
nam eact r ma a a r feiu f
it t r la s a eI f d cn f c nn le ts ptud i E
0 1
QM aq oa ui icro en ee le e raa t imra eb r i e L Lf Da Dm SM US TP Ptr M B l A
T
DN E
O T
NS _
8 D
E ET _
T A P DO -
D -
A E 8 8 T E 8 9
8 8 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 AU /
8 9
9
/
9
/
/
4 9 9
/
0 9
/
0 0
0, 0
/
0 0 0 DD
/ / f 3 / 0 4 2 / 2 r 6 / 0 7 9 7 0 1 1 3 1 / 9 2
/ / / / 1 1
/ 0 1
/ /
1
/ /
2
/
2
/
2
/
3 3 8 8 1 4 1 6 1 2 2 5 6 8 f
o y d
e s
e e r n la n h d h i
s in o e An s p n n n U , a e g m o so eh t
s h
a r
o r
g m d m
e d
n t
c ma oe h
p s ci d u nd m f t io A n h a A bl nd es s a n m s s u m ArC.
t y e d s F hc n n d e e cn la yI e r e _
mt a o x iLu hrlu pf oR t
c n d n R n . it h s s E ula T -
it s ne a r e .
wge s n e
f l oa el J dn mle a sl e a ar n o m ;
yA d i
nr i
d t r
gn an t s -
ot e n iw M f e a ics da n mgu t n s w
. it iy l
R L n t
e h a a t
Sede nM oiei e aq egn t n u q z bg b r f o
f om iMs t s t n et I
f o ev dmF a re;s ic L
ExE mit e e e pne r e ge u n e eFa t Rin r n ipro m Ria n er ei v meS et sc i
u o lao e ne r .
mE os f i su Rct m ei.v; aa la qb f hp ne s ict i w oic i la t nq p es ;~
t e
dc e et Se t
eR e u
q oi h r cC t
C
- Cmo an r
tsle ae TrRg lao udi a t S
w gl u r
Ac- x leo ed RaR i
t sRr u
dtyp e t n
e E
Mm sd en R ed f 1 t 7A ia r Dat la fo E n e ineO i
C r
L fo P Wan e t
on r a ot s mM on f o Rc n r i
v hd f
r ay n
on tl i m
a na e e np A yr y r re la r
U c P s neA t n e dv oe f oSh p an R co leo t
nn no l a od oe ic i
e hm Po At c r h e o tt s i
t s nn ;orn
- f. a g R nt e a vt ea mm oo bm a cw e Rt a i
loa ak un M nUa f t au s uig o F u p w Lmr r op a iiu F co mdr lo e e gsn nw l o
C qs e
r e wo f iu in df i f
r q Cme dd i
mo r c slu l
is o c ah i
em w. iao
. ddt i d
o ae eree r
0 of n eq ae l 0t n ea ee efi s W l
i r d c
- aa s MR i
1 FR Li PE RD CR 1 I TR RE F RAV CA LRR R 7lIltl !l l
~ ~
l 1.
MATERIALS REQUESTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE ONSITE PORTION OF AN IMPEP REVIEW I ' ORGANIZATION CHARTS l
l Clean, sized 8% X 11" including names and positions l 0 One showing positions from Governor down to Radiation Control Program Director (RCPD)
L o . One showing positions of current radiation control program with RCPD as Head a Equivalent charts for LLRW and mills programs, if applicable LICENSE LISTS o Printouts of current licenses, showing total, as follows:
I
! 'Name License # Location License Type Priority Last inspection Due Date l Sort alphabetically Also, sort by due date and by priority (if possible) l THE FOLLOWING LISTS l
!- o List of open licenso caser., with date of original request, and dates of follow up actions l 0 List of licenses terminated during review period.
l 0_ Copy of current log or other document used to track licensing actions L o Copy of current log or other document used to track inspections
- a List of Inspection frequency by license type l 0 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 o All State regulations a Records of results of supervisory "o Statutes affecting the regulatory authority of accompaniments of inspectors the state program o Emergency plan and communications list l l
- a Standard license conditions o Procedures for investigating allegations i o Technical procedures for licensing, model a Enforcement procedures, including licenses, review guides procedures for escalated enforcement, o SS&D review procedures severity levels, civil penalties (as applicable) o Instrument calibration records a Copies of job descriptions o inspection procedures and guides o inspection report forms i
e