ML20148H059

Responds to Requesting Assistance in Understanding NRC Interpretation Applied to Criteria Used in Determining Staff Needs for Radioactive Matls Programs

ML20148H059
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/23/1997
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Suppes R OHIO, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9706090143
Download: ML20148H059 (37)

Text

_

s,'#'

HAY 2 3 pf/

Mr. Roger L. Suppes, Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection Ohio Department of Health 35 East Chestnet Street,7th Floor Columbus, OH 43266

Dear Mr. Suppes:

"Ihis is in response to your letter dated May 13,1997, in which you requested assistance in understanding the interpretation that NRC applies to various criteria that have been used historically in determining staffing needs for the radioactive materials programs in Agreement States. We have addressed your questions in the enclosure. We have identified the issues presented in your letter and used the question / answer format for clarity, if you have additional questions, please write or call me at 301-415-3340 or Dennis Sollenberger at 301-415-2819.

Sincerely, Origina!Shned By RICHARD L BAN 3 ART Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated 4

Distribution:

DIR RF (7S-125)

DCD (SP07)

SDroggitis PDR (YES V NO_)

l Ohio File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\0HIOASS1.DMS

• See previous concurrence.

Tm receive a copy of this document, indicate in the boa: *C"

• Copy without attachment / enclosure

• E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy

~

OFFICE OSP l

'OSP:DD NMSS l

OSP:D l

NAME OSollenberger:kk PHLehaus JSurmeier RLBangart DATE 05/23/97*

05/23/97 05/23/97*

05/23/97*

OSP FILE CODE: SP-N A-15 053053

} { h M g (V's if" h h h 4G r

6.

7v b._w, gA 9706090143 970523

{ 'f PDR STPRG ESGOH n

PDR A

3

(

MAY 2 31997 Mr. Roger L. Suppes, Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection i

Ohio Department of Health 216 N. High Street P.O. Box 118 Columbus, OH 43266-0118

Dear Mr. Suppes:

This is in response to your letter dated May 1,1997, in which you requested assistance in understanding the interpretation that

• 3C applies to various criteria that have l

been used historically in determining staffing need for the radioactive materials programs in Agreement States. We have addressed your q estions in the enclosure. We have identified the issues presented in your letter and sed the question / answer format for clarity. If you have additional questions, pleas write or call me at 301-415-3340 or Dennis Sollenberger at 301-415-2819.

j Sincerely, mww RICHARD L BANGART Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated Distribution:

DlR RF (7S-125)

D D (SP07)

SDroggitis P R (YES V NO

)

Ohio File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\OHIOASST.DMS ve r.c.in e copy of this document. Ind6cate in the box: 'C" = C pgit attachment / enclosure

'E" = Copy with attachment /enclos/4e "N* = No copy OFFICE OSP gtfly l C/SQ:Tfl/

l NMS$/ /

OSPp)o

/

NAME DSollenberger:kk PHLc/hans VT JSurmeiefd RLBangdrW7D DATE 05/33/97

/05fLf/97 05r6/97 05f))/97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-N A-15

/

p ast p

'e UNITED STATES

f j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066H001 k.4,,,,, /

May 23, 1997 Mr. Roger L. Suppes, Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection Ohio Department of Health 35 East Chestnet Street,7th Floor Columbus, OH 43266

Dear Mr. Suppes:

i This i: in response to your letter dated May 13,1997, in which you requested

]

assistance in understanding the interpretation that NRC applies to various criteria that have 1

been used historically in determining staffing needs for the radioactive materials programs in Agreement States. We have addressed your questions in the enclosure. We have i

identified the issues presented in your letter and used the question / answer format for clarity. If you have additional questions, please write or call me at 301-415-3340 or Dennis Sollenberger at 301-415-2819.

Sincerely, (v( (

stM L Ric'hard L. Bangarthirector Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

t.

Issue: The first area of concern deals with the use and interpretation of the 1.01.5 FTE/100 licenses ratio.

l Question:

Does NRC use this criteria in rnaking staffing decisions for Agreement State programs?

Answer:

With the adoption of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation i

Program (IMPEP), the Commission discontinued use of its 1992 policy guidance that contained the staffing ratio. The staff looks at the performance of the State's program and makes recommendations based on its ability to accomplish the work. Additional detail is presented in NRC Management Directive 5.6, Part II, Programmatic Indicators, Performance Indicator 2 - Technical Staffing and Training.

Question:

Does the ratio include technical staff only or does it also include supervisory / management staff?

. Answer:

Historically, the ratio was first established as Commission policy in 1981 based on staffing information from States who were successfully conducting their programs. The NRC staff established the ratio as a guideline for future evaluation of Agreement State staffing. NRC's experience, prior to IMPEP, is that Agreement States have conducted effective programs with a staffing ratio less than 1.0/100 licenses and other Agreement States with staffing in excess of the 1.5 ratio have had difficulty in maintaining an adequate program. The ratio was developed to indicate the technical staff necessary to conduct the routine licensing and inspectior, function. It did not include program management, secretarial support, complex licensing and inspection such as uranium recovery and low-level radioactive waste, or other overhead functions.

Question:

Does the criteria include support staff?

Answer:

As stated above, the ratio does not include support staff.

Question:

If NRC does not use the 1.0-1.5/100 cr'iteria,.what will NRC use to make decisions regarding the adequacy of the staffing plan that Ohio develops?

Answer:

NRC will review the program statement which should include a justification for the staffing of the program. NRC will evaluate whether the State has provided a rationale for the staffing level, and may apply the 1.0-1.5 FTE/100 licenses as a general benchmark starting point until the NRC t

develops its new guidance for States entering into an Agreement with NRC.

The Stste should consider and evaluate the mix of licenses that may require specia'. handling such as Site Decommissioning Management Program (SDMP) sites, Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) site, uranium recovery sites, major licenses such as broad scope academic and large industrial licenses, and anticipated number of " problem" licensees.

n.

Issue: Questions have arisen concerning the staffing plan that NRC uses for your determinations of staff adequacy. It is my understanding based on conversations with NRC officials that current technical staffing in regional offices for inspection and licensing staff is 2.00/100 licenses.

Question:

Would NRC reasonably expect an Agreement State to maintain a similar staffing pattern to that of the regional office?

Answer:

No. NRC does not use a staff to number of licenses ratio to make regional staffing decisions. Just as for an Agreement State, NRC uses volume and complexity of work, as well as policy and budgeting constraints to establish regional staffing levels. Workload volume and complexity, together with organizational constraints, would likely differ between an Agreement State and an NRC region.

Issue: Once a staffing plan is implemented, we believe that issues could still arise that would result in Ohio getting behind in the performance of inspections.

Question:

Please clarify NRC's policy regarding when a program is considered to have facilities overdue for inspection and when does a program fall significantly behind in the completion of inspections?

Answer:

The term " overdue inspection" as used for IMPEP evaluations is defined in the Glossary of Handbook 5.6, pages 18 and 19 (enclosed).

Question:

What are NRC's expectations when a State falls behind in the performance of inspections?

Answer:

If the State falls behind in performing inspections as presented in Handbook 5.6, the NRC would expect the State to prepare a get well plan with a specific timetable for the performance to come into line with the evaluation criteria. This could be accomplished through hiring additional staff, borrowing other staff to work off the backlog work, or through contractor assistance. The remedy would be dependent on the cause of the backlog and would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Question:

Does NRC have any guidance or exception in terms of adequacy when the program is using non-inspection staff to maintain inspections at the required frequencies?

Answer:

We take your question on non-inspection staff to mean, staff that does not meet your criteria for being a qualified inspector. We would note this as part of the evaluation of the training and qualifications of your staff. We would recommend that you train those individuals so that they would meet the qualifications as an inspector. The State may want to qualify your licensing staff in the inspection area and your inspection staff in the licensing area.

This would provide flexibility for their use as the program evolves.

e.

Issue: An issue that has arisen in the development of the staffing plan relates to the need for senior inspection staff to provide keeping rules, policies, and procedures up to date. A second aspect of this issue is document review of documents that NRC provides to States for comment, action, and/or information. Another circumstance in this issue is inspection review and consistency from one inspection to another and one inspector to another. A final condition in discussing this situation is training and enforcement follow up. We believe the training component also has an aspect that would relate to licensee training and technical assistance and information to licensees and the public.

Question:

How does NRC factor these issues into determining staff requirements?

Answer:

These issues are handled in quite a variety of ways by the Agreement State programs. Most States have a single person or a limited number of persons that review alllicensing actions or allinspection reports. This provides for a consistent review. They should be qualified to license and inspect all the types of facilities in your State. This could be the licensing or inspection supervisors or designated senior reviewers. Under IMPEP, NRC evaluates whether the supervisors accompany nearly allinspectors on an annual basis to evaluate their performance in the field. If inspectors are not performing adequately, the State should require refresher training in the areas of weaknesses, and the supervisor must qualify the inspector prior to authorizing independent work by the individual. Several of the larger programs have established a compliance and enforcement section, separate from the inspection function, that issues all notices of violation and escalated enforcement actions. This provides a quality control check or an independent evaluation of the inspection findings and a check on the completeness of the inspection. All of these organizational structures are acceptable to NRC if they get the job done even if some are more efficient from a staffing point of view.

The NRC sends many documents to the Agreement States for both information, and review and comment. NRC attempts to provido sufficient time for the State to review the information and respond in a timely manner.

The State needs to screen the information to determine what information is critical to the State and the overall national regulatory program for radioactive materials. Other items are for your reference. The screening is typically done by the supervisory staff and subsequent reviews performed as assigned. Several of the larger programs have established rufemaking, guidance and training sections to focus this activity and not burden the licensing and inspection staff except as specifically assigned. Since responding to these actions is not mandatory, NRC does not require staffing for this activity; however, a quality program will plan for and staff these activities.

Enclosure:

Management Directive 5.6

~

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l.

DIRECTIVE TRANSMITTAL

,c l

TN: DT-95-20 To:

NRC Management Directives Custodians

Subject:

Transmittal of Management Directive 5.6, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)"

i l

Purpose:

Directive and Handbook 5.6 are being issued to establish the i

process by which the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and l

Safeguards and the Office of State Programs, with assistance from the Agreement States, conduct their periodic assessments of the NRC regions and Agreement States to determine the adequacy of the nuclear material licensing and inspection programs.

l Office of Origin:

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and j

Office of State Programs

~

j

Contact:

George Deegan,415-7834 l

Date Approved:

September 12,1995 Volume:

5 Governmental Relations and Public Affairs Directive:

5.6 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Availability:

U.S. Government Printing Office, (202) 512-2409 i

1 i;.

I

?

l

%Ilqan+ 1p.1K 1

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION l

l

)

i Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation l.

Program (IMPEP) i crzamtma:mm=m=ammmmes=rmarmmmma:rmmmmerca==n=ma

)

1 I

Directive s

a i

5.6 i

i l

i I

e b

s gn@

-t>

/i -

S

• Nr b

4

' //$

(% "

h sh

• M

.t v ? v, e

V:lums 5, Governmental Rel-ti:ns cnd Public AfRirs Integrct:d Mat:rirls P rf:rm:nce Ev:lutti:n Program (IMPEP)

Directive 5.6

~~.

W Contents Poli cy................................................................

1 Obj ect i ves............................................................ 1 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority...........

2 Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support (DEDS).......................................

2 Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and Director, Office of State Programs (OSP)............................

2 G eneral Counsel....................................................

2 Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD)...

3 Regional Administrators............................................... 3 Applicabili ty.........................................................

3 Han d book............................................................

3 Referen ces....................................................... ~..... s a

)

i i

Approved: September 12,1995 iii

cg

m 9,

.f

) U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Csmmission

• g***l* +, _

Affairs NMSS/OSP Volume: 5 Governmental Relations and Public t

l Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation l

Program (IMPEP)

Directive 5.6 l

Policy (5.6-01)

It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to evaluate the regional materials programs and Agreement State radiation control programs in an integrated manner, using common performance indicators, to ensure that the public health and safety is j

being adequately protected.

i Objectives (5.6-02)

^

To establish the process by which the Office of Nuclear Material e

Safety and Safeguards and the Office of State Programs conduct their periodic assessments to determine the adequacy of the licensing and inspection programs in the NRC regions and Agreement States. (021) 7b provide NRC and Agreement State management with a more a

systematic and integrated approach to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their nuclear material licensing and inspection j

programs. (022) j To provide significant input in the regulatory decisionmaking

=

process andindicate areas in which NRC and the Agreement States should dedicate more resources or management attention. (023) a Approved: September 12,1995 1

V;lume 5, G;vernm:ntal Rel:ti:ns and Public Aff:frs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Directive 5,6 j

Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority (5.6-03)

Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support (DEDS)

(031) e Oversees the integrated materials performance evaluation program (BfPEP). (a)

Chairs management resiew boards. (b) e Signs final reports issued to each region and Agreement State. (c) e Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and Director, Office of State Programs (OSP)

(032)

Implement the IMPEP within NMSS and OSP. Provide staffing e

support and training for review teams. (a)

Establish a schedule and develop a detailed review regimen for conducting the reviews in each region and Agreement State. (b)

Monitor the BfPEP process; evaluate and develop BfPEP policy, e

criteria, and methodology, and assess the uniformity and adequacy of the implementation of the program. (c)

Issue draft reports and prepare final reports for each region and State for consideration by the management review board and signature by the DEDS. (d)

Participate on management review boards. (e) e Coordinate with Agreement States to staff BfPEP reviews and the e

management review board with appropriate Agreement State representatives. (f)

General Counsel (033)

Participates on management review boards.

)

2 Approved: September 12,1995

V:1ume 5, Gov:rnm:ntal Relati:ns cnd Public Affairs Integrcted M:terials Perf:rmance Evclu ti:n Program (IMPEP) l Directive 5.6 4

~ ~.

Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational i

Data (AEOD)

(034)

Participates on management review boards.

Regional Administrators (035)

Implement the IMPEP within their respective regions. (a) e Provide staffing support for review teams, as needed. (b) e Applicability (5.6-04)

The policy and guidance in this directive and handbook apply to all NRC employees who are responsible for and participate in the IMPEP.

Handbook (5.6-05)

Handbook 5.6 describes the performance indicators that will be used, the performance standards against which these indicators will be evaluated, and the frequency and process sequence to be employed.

The " Glossary" in the handbook also defines some of the key terminology.

References (5.6-06)

Code of Federal Regulations,10 CFR 35.2, " Purpose and Scope."

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1245, " Inspector Qualifications."

, Chapter 1246, " Materials License Reviewer Qualification."

, Chapter 2800, " Materials Inspection Program."

Approved: September 12,1995 3

(...

j i

l Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation l

Program (IMPEP)

,=mm=ma=mm===mm==mm=mmmmamz=m======ma Handbook 5.6 l

1 l

l i

i l

9 h

h

,k

v hhX sX M)-

k' e

vr A r

- D =

A s JI

• 4 h

5>

}

V-A A %

a X..

a swr 6

Volume 5, Gov rnmental Relations and Public Aff" irs Integrated Materials Perf;rmance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Parts I -IV eb8 Con. tents Part I Evalu a t ion............................................................

1 Evaluation Frequency (A)..............................................

1 Evaluation Process Sequence (B)........................................

I t

1 Part II Peiformance Indicators................................................

3 G e n eral (A).........................................................

3 Programmatic Indicators (B)............................................

4 Performance Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (1).......

4 Performance Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Training (2)..............

4 Performance Indicator 3-Technical Quality of 1.icensing Actions (3)........

5 Performance Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (4).............

6

~

Performance Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (5)........

6 Part III Evaluation Criteria....................................................

7 1

j Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (A)....................

7 Satisfa ctory (1)....................................................

7 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2).................

8 Unsatisfactory (3)..................................................

8 C at e go ry N (4)....................................................

8 Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Training (B)...........................

8 Satisfa ct ory (1)....................................................

8 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2).................

9 Unsatisfactory (3).................................................. 10 Cat egory N (4).................................................... 10 Indicator 3-Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (C)..................... 11

(

Sa tisfa ctory (1).................................................... 11 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)................. 11 Unsatisfa ctory (3).................................................. 11 l

Approved: September 12,1995 iii l

I

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Aff irs Integrated M:terials Perf;rmance Ev;1urti:n Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 ' arts I-IV P

~

Contents 1

Part III(continued)

Ca te gory N (4).................................................... 12

)

Indicator 4-Tbchnical Quality of Inspections (D).......................... 12

]

i Satisfa ct oiy (1).................................................... 12 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)................. 12

)

Unsatisfactory (3).................................................. 13 j

Cate gory N (4).................................................... 13 I

Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (E)..................... 13 Satisfactory (1)....................................................

13 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)................. 14 Unsatisfactory (3).................................................. 14 Ca t egory N (4).................................................... 14 i

Part IV Programmatic Assessment........................................'..... 15

)

G e ne ral (A)......................................................... 15

)

Findings for Agreement State Programs (B)............................... 16 Finding 1-Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Comp ati bl e (1)................................................. 16 Finding 2-Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and i

Not Compatible (2)............................................. 16 Finding 3-Adequate, But Needs Improvement and/or Not Compatible (3).. 16 Finding 4-Inadequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and/or Not Compatible (4)............................................. 17 Findings for NRC Regional Programs (C)................................ 17 G lo s s a ry.............................................................. 18 I,

i I

iv Approved: September 12,1995

V;1um2 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part I Part I Evaluation Evaluation Frequency (A)

NRC will review the performance of each region and each Agreement State on a periodic basis. The schedule for conducting each regional or Agreement State visit will be developed by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and the Office of State Programs (OSP) in coordination with the regions and States.

Approximately 10 to 12 reviews will be scheduled in most years. Under normal conditions, this would allow evaluations of NRC re'gions every 2 years, and Agreement States every 3 years. However, these frequencies can be adjusted upward or downward on the basis of the findings from the last review or in light of significant program changes in a particular State or region. In addition, this schedule prosides for review of certain NMSS functions on an as-needed basis.

Evaluation Process Sequence (s)

The typical evaluation process for the review team is summarized below:

e Develop review schedule for the year. (1)

Assemble and train team members. (2) e Designate team leader and members for each scheduled e

resiew. (3)

Review completed licensing actions on an ongoing basis to help focus reviews. (4)

Transmit questionnaires to affected regions and States. (5) e l

l Approved: September 12,1995 1

l l

~

V lume 5, Governmental Rel:tions and Public Aff:frs Integrated Materials Perf;rmance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part I

~

)

Evaluation Process Sequence (B)(continued)

Provide copies of questionnaire responses and most current e

performance data summary to team members. (6)

Assess a sample of inspections at different types of licensed e

facilities by accompanying the inspectors. (7)

Conduct onsite portion of IMPEP, using the criteria specified in e

this handbook and any performance review procedures in conjunction with any customized review elements. (8)

Prepare draft IMPEP report, with recommendation for overall e

performance evaluation, for office director's signature. (9)

Issue the draft report. (10) e Review and consider written comments received from the regions e

or Agreement States. (11)

~

) ;

Prepare proposed final report for consideration by the e

management review board (MRB). (12)

Conduct MRB meeting. (13)

Issue final reports, include the written responses received and any changes to the report based on consideration of the written responses, and a summary of MRB findings. (14) e i

l i

2 Appr ved: September 12,1995

V:lume 5, Governm:ntal Reitti:ns cnd Public Affairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part II_

Part II Performance Indicators General (A)

A description of the performance indicators to be evaluated for each region and each Agreement State is given in (B) of this part. The evaluation criteria (i.e., performance standards) against which these indicators are to be assessed are described in Part III of this handbook.

These reviews determine program adequacy and compatibility in the Agreement States and are instrumental in improving State and NRC regional performance, thus ultimately leading to improved licensee performance. (1)

The performance indicators should be used as a starting point of inquiry. This, in turn, should lead program evaluators to a more careful examination of the underlying conditions, or root causes, of potential problem areas. Evaluators may find correlations exists between two or more performance indicators. In this situation, the impact of individual performance symptoms could be compounded when combined with others. Conversely, a regulatory program measured as potentially weak against one particular indicator, nonetheless, could be rated as strong overall if there are sufficient mitigating factors with respect to other indicators. (2)

Certain non-reactor functions that continue to be conducted from NRC headquarters, such as fuel cycle licensing, uranium and thorium milling, sealed source and device reviews, low-level radioactive waste disposal licensing, and safeguards activities are excluded from this set of indicators because they are not common to regional and Agreement State activities. These may be incorporated, as appropriate, as performance-based noncommon indicators contributing to a evaluation of a program. (3) l 3

i Approved: September 12,1995

V21um3 5, G:v;rnmental Relati:ns cnd Public Affzirs Integrcted htferials Perf.:rm:nce Evclurti:n Prcgre.m (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part H

~~.

~

l General (A)(continued)

For Agreement States, the noncommon indicators will be legislative and legal authority, compatibility, uranium and thorium milling, sealed source and device reviews, and low-level radioactive waste disposallicensing. (4)

This exclusion does not prohibit the Office of Nuclear Material Safety

{

and Safeguards (NMSS) and the Office of State Programs (OSP) from using other indicators and/or performance standards to supplement those described in this directive. (5) i Programmatic Indicators (n)

Performance Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (1)

Periodic inspections oflicensed operations are essential to ensure that 3

activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety practices. The frequency of inspections is specified in the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter i

2800, and is dependent on the amount and the kind of material, the

)

i type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections.

There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the compliance program. Information regarding the number of overdue inspections is a significant measure of the status of an Agreement State's or NRC region's materials inspection program, although reviews also should examine specific cases where the inspection frequency has been significantly exceeded (i.e., by more i

than 100 percent). The terms " materials inspection" and " overdue inspection" are defined in the Glossary to this handbook.

Performance Indicator 2-Technical Staffmg and 'Iraining (2)

The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent on having a sufficient number of experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the implementation of these programs; thus it could affect public health and safety. (a)

For this performance indicator, qualitative as well as quantitative measures must be considered. In particular, the reason for apparent trends in staffing must be explored. Is the rate of turnover and the 1

4 Approved: September 12,1995

V:lume 5, Gsv:rnmental Relati:ns cnd Public Affairs i

Integrcted M:terials Pcrfcrmance Ev luati:n Progr :m (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part H Programmatic Indicators (s)(continued)

Performance Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Training (2)

(continued) degree of understaffing symptomatic of a chronic problem or is it merely a short-term phenomenon? Why is turnover high? What steps are being taken to address this? What effect is it having on other performance indicators? (b)

Review of staffing also requires a consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification of the technical staff. New hirees need to be technically qualified. Professional staff normally should have bachelor's degrees or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. Training requirements for NRC inspectors are specified in the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1245, and for NRC materials licensing reviewers, in the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1246.

The requirements include a combination of classroom requirements and practical on-the-job training. Some NRC regions impose additional requirements on certain license reviewers or inspectors, depending on their individual responsibilities and the types oflicenses they review and/or inspect. (c)

In addition, the qualification process for NRC materials program inspectors includes demonstration of knowledge of relevant sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, completion of a qualifications journal, and appearance before a qualification board. Although

- Agreement States need not follow the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapters 1245 and 1246, they should have a program for training and qualification of personnel, and it should be adhered to in Agreement State programs. The evaluation standard measures the overall quality I

of training available to, and taken by, materials program personnel. (d)

Performance Indicator 3 -Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (3)

An acceptable program for licensing radioactive material includes preparation and use of internal licensing guides and policy memoranda to ensure technical quality in the licensing program (when appropriate, NRC guidance may be used); prelicensing inspection of complex facilities; and supervisory review, when appropriate. (a) l l

l l

Approved: September 12,1995 5

l

V:lume 5, Governmental Relati:ns cnd Public Aff:frs Integr ted M: trials Perf:rmance Ev:luntion Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part II

~

l Programmatic Indicators (B)(continued)

Performance Indicator 3 -Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (3)

(continued)

This performance indicator evaluates the tecimical quality of the licensing program on the basis of an in-depth onsite review of a representative cross-section of licensing action for various types of licenses. Technical quality includes not only the review of completed actions, but also an examination of any renewals that have been pending for more than a year because the failure to act on such requests may have health and safety implications. To the extent possible, the onsite review also should capture a representative cross-section as completed by each of the reviewers in the region or State. (b) i Performance Indicator 4-Technical Quality ofInspections (4)

I This performance indicator provides the qualitative balance to Performance Indicator 1, which looks at the status of the inspection program on a quantitative basis. Review team members will I

accompany a sampling of inspectors at different types of licensed facilities to evaluate the knowledge and capabilities of regional and Agreement State inspectors. These accompaniments will usually occur l

at a time other than the onsite review of the region or Agreement State to afford the review team sufficient time to observe inspectors at different types oflicensee facilities. These reviews focus on the scope, 1

completeness, and technical accuracy of completed inspections and related documentation. Review teams will conduct in-depth, onsite reviews of a cross-section of completed inspection reports performed by different inspectors. In addition, review teams will verify that supervisors generally accompany inspectors on an annual basis to j

provide management quality assurance.

Perfonnance Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (5)

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of the NRC or Agreement State response to incidents, alleged incidents, and other allegations of safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health and safety.

3 A careful assessment ofincident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures, internal and external coordination, and investigative and followup procedures will be a significant indicator of the overall quality of the program.

i A proved: September 12,1995 6

P 4

V:lume 5, Governm:ntal Relati:ns cnd Public Aff:frs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part III Part III

~

Evaluation Criteria NRC regions and Agreement States will be evaluated in their ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs using the performance indicators described in Part II of this handbook. The evaluation criteria for cad: performance indicator are given below.

Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (A)

Satisfactory (1)

Core licensees (those with inspection frequencies of 3 years or less) are inspected at regular intervals in accordance with frequencies prescribed in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800. (a)

Deviations from these schedules are normally coordinated e

between working staff and management. Deviations are generally the result of joint decisions that consider the risk of licensee operation, past licensee performance, and the need to temporarily defer the inspection (s) to address more urgent or more critical priorities. (b)

There is clear evidence of an organized "get-well" plan to e

reschedule any missed or deferred inspections. (c)

Inspections of new licensees are generally conducted within e

6 months of license approval, or in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Section 04-03, for those new licensees not possessing licensed material. (d)

A large majority of the inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days as specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0610-10). (e)

Approved: September 12,1995 7

V:1ume 5, Gov:rnmental Rehtiens cnd Public Affairs Int: grated M teri:Is Perform nce Evalu:tirn Progr:m (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part III t

Indicator 1-Status of Materials i

Inspection Program (A) (continued)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)

More than 10 percent of the core licensees are inspected at e

intervals that exceed the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, frequencies by more than 25 percent. (a)

Inspections of newlicensees are frequently not conducted within 6 e

months oflicense approval. (b)

Some of the inspection findings are delayed, or not communicated e

to licensees with 30 days. (c)

Unsatisfactory (3)

More than 25 percent of the core licensees are inspected at e

intervals that exceed that NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, frequencies by more than 25 percent. (a)

~

)

Inspections of new licensees are frequently delayed, as are the e

inspection Endings. (b)

Category N (4)

Special conditions exist that provide adequate justification for e

withholding a rating. For example, an unforeseen event or emergency with significant health and safety consequences may have required a tem inspection program.porary diversion of resources from the core However, these programmatic adjustments are well thought out and properly coordinated with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) or Agreement State management.

Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and

'IYaining (e)

Satisfactory (1)

Review indicates implementation of a well-conceived and -balanced staffing strategy throughout the assessment period and demonstrates the qualifications of the technical staff. This is indicated by the presence of most of the following features:

I 8

Approved: September 12,1995

V;lume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Aff frs

~

Integrated Materials Perf:rmance Evaluati:In Program (IMPEP)-

Handbook 5.6 Part III Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Daining (B)(continued)

Satisfactory (1)(continued)

Balance in staffing the licensing and inspection programs (a) e Few, if any, vacancies, especially at the senior-level positions (b) e Prompt management attention and review, such as development of e

a corrective action plan to address problems in high rates of attrition or positions being vacant for extended periods (c)

Qualification criteria for hiring new technical staff established and e

followed (Staff would normally be expected to have bachelor's I

degrees or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences.

Senior personnel should have additional training and experience in radiation protection commensurate with the types oflicenses they issue or inspect.)(d)

License reviewers and inspectors trained and qualified in a e

reasonable time periodi (e)

Management commitment to training clearly evident (f) e Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)

Review determines the presence of some of the following conditions:

Some staff turnover that could adversely upset the balance in e

staffing the licensing and inspection programs (a)

Some vacant positions not readily filled (b) e Some evidence of management attention or actions to deal with e

staffing problems (c)

Some of the licensing and inspection personnel not making prompt e

progress in completing all of the training and qualification requirements (d) 1 For the regions, this means there has been, and continues to be, a clear effort to adhere to the requirements and conditions specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapters 1245 and 1246, and the applicable quahficationsjournals,or to receive equivalent training elsewhere. For the Agreement states, equivalent r guirements should be in place and folkmed.

i i

Approved: September 12,1995 9

t

=

V:lume 5, G vernmentnl Relations cnd Public Affairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part IU=

~...

}

Indicator 2-Technical Stafung and Daining (B)(continued)

Satisfactory With Recommendations forImprovement (2)(continued)

The training and qualification standards include areas needing e

improvement (e)

Some of the new staff hired with little education or experience in e

physical and/or life sciences, or materials licensing and inspection (f)

Unsatisfactory (3)

Review determines the presence of chronic or acute problems related to some of the following conditions, which cause concerns about their likely effects on other performance indicators:

Signi5 cant staff turnover relative to the size of the program'(a)

Most vacant positions not filled for extended periods (b) e Little evidence of management attention or actions dealing with staf5ng problems (c)

Most of the licensing and inspection personnel not making prompt e

progress in completing all of the training and qualification requirements (d)

New staff members hired $ithout having scientific or technical backgrounds that would equip them to receive health physics training (e)

Category N (4)

.Special conditions exist that provide justification for withholding a rating. For example, there has been a substantial management effort to deal with staffing problems. NMSS or the Office of State Programs (OSP) has been kept informed of the situation and discernable recent progress is evident.

)

10 Approved: September 12,1995

V: lum: 5, Gov:rnm:ntal Relati:ns and Public Aftirs s.

i Integrated Mat: rials Perf:rmance Evalu ti:n Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part III f

Indicator 3-Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (c)

Satisfactory (1)

Review of completed licenses and a representative sample of e

licensing files indicates that license reviews are generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality. (a)

Health and safety issues are properly addressed. (b)

License reviewers usually have the proper signature authority for e

the cases they review. (c)

Special license tiedown conditions are usually stated clearly and e

are inspectable. (d)

Deficiency letters are well written and used at the proper time. (e)

}

e Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate thorough-analysis of a licensee's inspection and enforcement history. (f)

Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers in most e

cases and are generally followed. (g)

No potentially signi5 cant health and safety issues can be linked to l

e licensing practices. (h)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)

Review indicates that some licensing actions do not fully address health and safety concerns or indicates repeate d examples of problems with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing actions.

Unsatisfactory (3)

Review indicates that licensing actions frequently fail to address i

important health and safety concerns or indicates chronic problems with regard to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing actions.

f Approved: September 12,1995 11

V;lume 5, Gov:rnmental Rel tions cnd Public Affcirs

~

Integrated Mit::ri Is Pcrf:rmance Ev:luttion Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part III

~

l Indicator 3-Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (c)(continued)

Category N (4)

Not applicable.

Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (o)

Satisfactory (1)

Review team members accompanying a sample ins e

combined with an onsite review of a representative cross pectors section of completed inspection files indicates inspection findings are usually well founded and well documented throughout the assessment. (a)

A review of inspector field notes or completed reports indicates that most inspections are complete and reviewed promptly by supervisors or management. (b) y Procedures are in place and normally used to help identify root e

causes and poor licensee performance. (c)

In most instances, followup inspections address previously e

identified open items and/or past violations. (d)

Inspection findings generally lead to appropriate and prompt e

regulatory action. (e)

Supervisors accompany nearly all inspectors on an annual basis. (f) e Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)

Review indicates that some inspections do not address potentially e

important health and safety concerns or it indicates periodic problems with respect to completeness, adherence to procedures, management review, thoroughness, technical quality, and consistency. (a)

Review indicates that findings in inspection reports and inspection e

6les are, on occasion, not well founded or well documented. (b)

I 12 Approved: September 12,1995

V:lume 5, Gav rnmental Relati:ns cud Public Affcirs Integrated M:terials Pcrf:rmance Evcluatirn Progrcrn (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part III Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (D)(continued)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) (continued)

Review does not demonstrate an appropriate level of management e

review. (c)

Supervisors accompaniment of inspectors are not performed e

systematically. (d)

Followup actions to inspection findings are often not timely. (e)

Unsatisfacton (3)

Review indicates that inspections frequently fail to address e

potentially important health and safety concerns or it indicates chronic problems exist with respect to completeness, adherence to procedures, management review, thoroughness, technical quality, and consistency. (a)

Supervisors infrequently accompany inspectors. (b)

Followup actions to inspection findings are often not timely and e

appropriate. (c)

Category N (4)

Not applicable.

e Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (s)

Satisfacion (1)

Incident response and allegation procedures are in place and followed in nearly all cases. (a)

Actions taken are appropriate, well coordinated, and timely in e

most instances. (b)

Level of effort is usually commensurate with potential health and e

l safety significance of incident. (c) l l

Approved: September 12,1995 13

Wlume 5, Gov:rnmental Rel:tiens cnd Public Affcirs Integrcted Meterials Perfcrm:nce Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part III

)

Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (E)(continued)

Satisfactory (1)(continued)

Investigative procedures are appropriate for incident. (d)

Corrective (enforcement or other) actions are adequately e

identified to licensees promptly and appropriate followup measures are taken to ensure prompt compliance. (e)

Followup inspections are scheduled and completed, if e

necessary. (f)

Notification to NMSS, the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of e

Operational Data, or OSP, and others as may be appropriate, is usually performed in a timely fashion. (g)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)

Incident response and allegation procedures are in place but occasionally not practiced in a detailed fashion. (a)

Performance is marginal in terms of resoking potential public e

health and safety issues, but not as well coordinated, complete, or timely as would be required under the " Satisfactory" performance standard. (b)

Unsatisfactory (3)

Review indicates frequent examples of response to incidents or allegations to be incomplete, inappropriate, poorly coordinated, or not timely. As a result, potential health and safety problems persists.

Category N (4)

Not applicable.

14 Approved: September 12,1995

V:lums 5, G:v rnm:ntal Relati:ns cnd Public Affdrs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part IV Part IV Programmatic Assessment General (A)

A management review board (MRB) will make the overall assessment of each NRC region's or Agreement State's program on the basis of the proposed final report and recommendations prepared by the team that conducted the review of that region or State, including any unique circumstances as well as noncommon indicators. (1)

The MRB will consist of a group of senior NRC managers, or their designees, to include the: (2)

Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, e

Cafeguards, and Operations Support (a)

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (b) e Director, Office of State Programs (c) e Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (d)

General Counsel (e) e The Agreement States also will be invited to nominate a representative to participate in MRB meetings, as a nonvoting Agreement State liaison. In this capacity, the State representative would have full authority to receive applicable documentation and engage in all MRB discussions except for any that might involve the Agreement State liaison's own State. The Agreement State liaison would not have voting authority; this function is reserved solely by NRC. (3)

Approved: September 12,1995 15

Volume 5, Gsv:rnmental Relatigns end Public Affrirs Intsgrried Mnterials Pcrfcrm nce Evalu:tirn Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part IV

~...

I General (A)(continued)

For an NRC region, the' MRB will only assess the adequacy of the program to protect public health and safety. The nature of NRC findings regarding NRC's Agreement State review process is described below. (4)

Findings for Agreement State Programs (B)

Finding 1-Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Compatible (1)

If NRC staff 6nd that a State program has met all the Agreement e

State program review criteria or that only minor deficiencies exist, the Commission will find that the State's program is adequate to 1

protect the public health and safety. (a)

If the NRC determines that a State program contains all required NRC program elements for compatibility, or only minor l

discrepancies exist, the program will be found compatible. (b)

Finding 2-Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Not i

Compatible (2)

)

If NRC finds that a State program has met all the Agreement State e

program review criteria or that only minor deficiencies exist, the i

Commission will find that the State's program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. (a)

L If NRC determines that a State has failed to adopt a necessaryitem e

i of compatibility within the period of time specified by l

implementing procedures for NRC's compatibility policy statement (i.e., more than minor compatibility discrepancies), the program would be found not compatible. (b) s Finding 3-Adequate, But Needs Impmvement and/or Not

[

Compatible (3)

?

e If NRC finds that a State's program protects public health and safety, but is deficient in meeting some of the review criteria, NRC

.nay find that the State's program is adequate, but needs j

improvement. NRC would consider, in its determination plans, q

l 4'

i j

16 Approved: September 12,1995 i

~.

V:lume 5, G:vernm:ntal R:1 tions cnd Public Affairs Integrcted Mct:ri:Is Perform:nce Evalurtion Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part IV Findings for Agreement State Programs (B)(continued) s Finding 3-Adequate, But Needs Improvement and/or Not Compatible (3)(continued) which deficiencies noted during the review that the State has to address. (a)

In cases where less significant State deficiencies previously e

identified have been uncorrected for a significant period of time, NRC also may find that the program is adequate but in need of improvement. (b)

If NRC determines that a State has failed to adopt a necessaiy item e

i of compatibility within the period of time specified by implementing procedures for NRC's compatibility policy statement, the program would be found not compatible. (c)

Finding 4-Inadequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and/or Not Compatible (4)

If NRC finds that a State's program is significantly deficient in e

some or all the review criteria, NRC would find that the State's program is not adequate to protect the public health and safety. (a)

If NRC determines that a State has failed to adopt a necessary item e

of compatibility within the period of time specified by implementing procedures for NRC's compatibility policy statement, the program would be found not compatible. (b)

Findings for NRC Regional Programs (C)

An MRB's findings for regional programs will be the same as those listed above for Agreement States with the exclusion of the 6ndings for compatibility.

Approved: September 12,1995 17 l

t

V: lum 2 5, Gov rnm:ntal Relati::ns end Public Affairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook _5.6 Glossary l

Glossary It is necessary to note that some Agreement $tates or NRC regions may not define these terms identically. In such cases, the review team will highlight any differences in its review, but draw its conclusions and make its assessments on the basis of the definitions used by that State or region at the time of the review.

Allegation. A declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy associated with regulated activities, the validity of which has not been established. This term includes all concerns identified by sources such as the media, individuals, or organizations, and technical audit efforts from Federal, State, or local government offices regarding activities at a licensee's site. Excluded from this definition

)

are matters being handled by more formal processes such as 10 CFR 2.206 petitions, hearing boards, appeal boards, and so fonh.

Incident. An event that may have caused or threatens to cause conditions described in 10 CFR 20.2202 (old 20.403),10 CFR 30.50, 10 CFR 40.60,10 CFR 70.50, or the equivalent State regulations.

Materials Inspection. The definitions in 10 CFR 170.3, and in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Sections 03.03 and 07.01, should be used to determine what constitutes an inspection. In addition, Agreement State hand-delivery of new licenses may constitute initial inspections. The term includes both routinely scheduled and reactive inspections.

Materials Licensing Action. Reviews of applications for new byproduct materials licenses, license amendments, renewals, and license terminations.

Overdue Inspections. Currently, NRC defines this term based on guidance in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, especially Sections 04.03 (a) and 05.01 through 05.04. Many States use different de5nitions. For pmposes of this directive, a materials license will be considered overdue for inspection in the following cases:

18 Approved: September 12,1995

c Valum: 5, G v:rnmental Rel ti:ns and Public Affcirs h

Integrated Mat: rials Perfcrmance Ev:.luatian Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Glossary F-Glossary ccontinuea)

- A new licensee that possesses licensed material has not been inspected within 6 months of receipt of licensed material, within 6 months of beginning licensed activities, or within 12 months of license issuance, whichever comes first.

- An existing core license is more than 25 percent beyond the interval defined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800,

'. An existing non-core license is more than 1 year beyond the interval. (An inspection will not be considered l

overdue if the inspection frequency has been extended in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Section 05.01, based on good licensee performance.

Determinations of overdue inspections will not be based on any.

1 inspection frequencies established by States or regions if those frequencies are more stringent than those contained in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800. The frequencies provided in NRC Inspection MLnual, Chapter 2800, will generally be used y"

1 as the yardstick for determining if an inspection is overdue.

I l

l l

i P

L i

i l

i i

t I

i i

Approved: September 12,1995 19

(

l URGENT: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5/28/97 i

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS FAX: (301) 415-3502 NUMBER OF PAGES: 5 including this page 4

DATE:

MAY 23,1997 TO:

ROGER L. SUPPES FROM:

RICHARD L. BANGART, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (301) 415-3340

SUBJECT:

MAY 23,1997 LETTER TO YOU FROM R. BANGART (THE ENCLOSURE, MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 5.6, WILL BE MAILED TO YOU TODAY WITH THE LETTER) 1 i

\\

VERIFICATION - 415-3340 i

l i

I

l i

< TRANSACTION REPORT >

05-23-1997(FRI) 16:21 l

1 E

TRANSMIT 3

NO.

DATE TIME DESTINATION STATION PG.

DURATION MODE RESULT 32194 5-23 16:18 OHIO 5

0'02*42*

NORM.E OK l

5 0'02'42" f

5 9

L l

1 EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM l !

<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>

l.: L TASK # - 7S125 DATE- 05/13/97 M MAIL CTRL._ _

__ - 1997 TASK STARTED - 05/13/97 TASK DUE - 05/22/97 TASK COMPLETED -

/

/

-_~~

__.-~

TASK DESCRIPTION - LTR FROM ROGER SUPPES, OH REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR AN

..__~

AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM IN OHIO REQUESTING OFF. -

REQUESTER -

WITS -

0 FYP - N

~~~..____.

PROG.-

PERSON -

STAFF LEAD -

PROG. AREA -

~. -~

~~

PROJECT STATUS -

OSP DUE DATE:

5/22/97 PLANNED ACC.

-N LEVEL CODE -

1 4(: /'/du

(

/

Eb

/

r t

~

5"cb

%~YY""=

$m A /

d n r r <., <

e o na w p Hw sym a, Asgimn[4f-fa D h ce

(,f AY t M &< e em OVg

- - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~

- ~ -

• s. [ *

• hD Y'

b ps-i OHIO DEPARTMENT OF F EALTH aca l

mms 4 i

5 246 N HIGH STREET V

GEORGE V VolNoVICH J

Post office Box 118 Govemor i

Columbus. ohio 43266 0118 1

]

' Telephone: (614) 466 3543 e or ofH a l

l i

i s

May 13,1997 1-j'

)

i Dennis'Sollenberger, Ph.D.

4 j

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

[

Office of Agreement State Programs j

i 11555 Rockville Pike - 3rd Floor i

Rocksille, Maryland 20852 i

1

Dear Dr. Sollenberger:

' I am writing in regard to staffing requirements for an agreement state program in Ohio. The j

Bureau of Radiation Protection has been engaged in discussions with a committee of the Radiation j

Advisory Council in the Ohio Department of Health for several months regarding staffing needs for i

the program.' These discussions have generated several questions. Your response will significantly I

assist us in working through issues concerning staff needs for the program. Your response will also i

j assist us in understanding the interpretation that NRC applies to various ' criteria that have been used 1

j_

historically in determining staffing needs for radioactive materials programs.

.]

t 3

The first area of concern deals with the use and interpretation of the 1.0-1.5/100 licensee

]-

ratio. Does NRC use this criteria in making staffing decisions for agreement state programs? Does j

i the ratio include technical staff only or does it also include supervisory / management staff? Does the criteria include support staff? If NRC does not use the 1.0-1.5/100 criteria, what will NRC use to make decisions regarding the adequacy of the staffing plan that Ohio develops?

i Questions have arisen concerning the staffing plan that NRC uses for your determinations i

of staff adequacy. It is my understanding based on conversations with NRC officials that current technical staffing in regional offices for inspection and licensing staffis 2.0/100 licenses. Would i

NRC reasonably expect an agreement state to maintain a similar staff *mg pattern to that of the regional office.

Once a staffing plan is implemented, we believe that issues could still arise that would result in Ohio getting behind in the performance ofinspections. Please clarify NRC's policy regarding when a program is considered to have facilities overdue for inspection and when does a program fall significantly behind in the completion ofinspections? What are NRC's expectations when a state falls behind in the performance ofinspections? Does NRC have any guidance or exception in terms of adequacy when the program is using non-inspection staff to maintain inspections are required frequencies?

%s.e,,,,o_,...,o,e,,_

m..,...e,m

4

,,e-w.

. An issue that has arisen in the development of the staffing plan relates to the need for senior

)

l inspection staff to provide keeping rules, policies, and procedures up to date. A second aspect of this i

issue is document review of the documents that NRC provides to states for comments, action, and/or i

infonnation. Another circumstance is this issue is inspection review and development of consistency j

from one inspection to another and one inspector to another. A fmal condition in discussing this i

situation is training and enforcement follow-up. We believe the training component also has an aspect that would relate to licensee training and technical assistance and information to licensees and the public. How does NRC factor these issues into determining staff requirements?

4 j

The committee is in the final stages of developing staffing recommendations for the 4

Radiation Advisory Council and the department. The committee meets again on May 28,1997. I realize that this is a very short time to develop a complete response to Ohio's questions. Any assistance you can provide in sending me your response to the.se inquiries would be most helpful.

j IfI can be of assistance in clarifying the information requested in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (614) 644-7860.

i Sincerely,

/

4 l

Roger. Suppes, Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection

]

Ohio Department of Health RLS/me

)

l 4

)

i j

i