ML20211A472

Forwards Document, Integrated Matls Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaire. Responses Requested in Writing by 990917

ML20211A472
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/13/1999
From:	Duane White NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Bailey E CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9908240057
Download: ML20211A472 (13)

Text

e

'* _ +f * * %

• , UNITED STATES

,8 p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D j REGloN i

'o 475 ALLENDALE ROAD g KING OF PRUsstA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 g ***** ,d,4 August 13,1999 Edgar D. Bailey, C.H.P.

Chief Califomia Department of Health Services Division of Food, Drug & Radiation Safety Radiological Health Branch P.O. Box 942732 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320

Dear Mr. Bailey:

As you are aware, NRC is using the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) for the evaluation of Agreement State Programs. Per our discussion, I will be the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Califomia program scheduled for the week of October 4, 1999. The team will include Linda McLean, Region IV, Lance Rakovan, Office of State Programs, and Cynthia Sanders, State of Georgia.

Enclosed is the document, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaire." The questionnaire is being fumished to you electronically as well as in printed form. I ask that you send your responses to me by Intemet and in writing by September 17, 1999. I am sending the questionnaire 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 request that you set up an appointment with the appropriate State Senior Management Official to discuss the results of the IMPEP review of the California program on October 8,1999.

If you have questions, please call me at (610) 337-5042 or by e-mail at ADW@NRC. GOV.

I l

1

\

L 240003  ;

9908240057 990813 STPRG ESGCA PDR PDR U Qj J

o .

E. Bailey 2 California Department of Health Services Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely, Duncan White State Agreements Officer Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

Dr. Larry Barrett, Chief ~

Califomia Department of Health Services Division of Food, Drug & Radiation Safety Mail Stop 419 P.O. Box 942732 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 l

i.-

E. Bailey 3 California Department of Health Services -

_ DlSIBIBUIlON 1 fli8PO1L : g "L. McLean,g RIV.

l M. Shaffer, RIV l C. Hackney, RIV

!' P. Lohaus, OSP F. Combs, OSP

' L Rakovan, OSP R. Blanton, OSP K. Schneider, OSP C. Sanders, Georgia .

l I

DOCUMENT NAME: B:\DNMS Documents \ Misc Letter \LCalifomia Departme.wpd 97851364

- To receive a cop ' of this document, Indicate in the bou: *C" = Copy w/o attach /enci "E* = Copy w/ attach /end "W = No copy OFFICE DNMSISI,) lN DNMS/RI l l l NAME- DWhitV

DATE 08/13/99 08/ /99 08/ /99 - 08/ /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

/

. }

Approved by OMB' No. 3150-0183 Expires 5/31/2001 4

'.1 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE

' California Radiological Health Branch Reporting Period: October 26,1996, to October 3,1999 A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Status of Materials Insoection Prooram

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 forcompleting 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.

2 Estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request: 45

. hours. 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 (31504183), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. If an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, i the information collection.  ;

l I

]

1

4. Please complete the following table for licensees granted reciprocity during the reporting period.

Number of Licensees Granted Reciprocity Number of Licensees Priority Pern-:In 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

?. YR YR YR YR YR YR YR YR 3 YR YR YR YR YR YR 4

All GUner

5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers were performed?

6. For NRC Regions, did you establish numerical goals for the number of inspections to be performed during this review reriod? 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 during the review period. Include:

Ingoector Supervisor License Cat. Date 2

t l,

l. .

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.

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

lil. Technical Staffina a~f Trainina i

l 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 Stater. 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 -

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:

l i

Namt 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 ,

end years of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate.  !

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; foi Agreement States, please describe your qualifications

[ requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For each, list the l courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.  ;

i

14. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program l during this period.

l l 15. List the vacant positions in each program, the length of time each position has j been vacant, and a brief summary of effoits to fill the vacancy.

IV. Technical Quality of Licensina Actions

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.

3 l

k 4

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

t 8. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?

ig. For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type, any <

renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.

V. Responses to incidents and Alleaations

20. Please provide a lict of the reportable incidents (i.e., medical misadministration, oveaxposures, lost and abandoned sources, incidents requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less notification, etc. See Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in Agreement States for additional guidance.) that 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 tiup following format:

Licensee Name License # Date of incident /Reoort 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 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 dosed.

l 4

VI. General

25. Please prepare a summary of the status of the State's or Region's actions taken in response to the comments and recommendations following the last review.

26. Provide a brief description of your program's strengths and weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, problems or difficulties which occurred during this review period.

C. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Leaislation 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 promulgation, briefly describe your State's procedures for amending regulations in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC, showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.

II. 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:

SS&D Manufacturer, Type of Registry Distributor or Device Date Number Custom User er 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:

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 l

1 l

)

r I

4 lli. Low-Level Waste Prooram

34. ' Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Low-level Waste Program: )

I Status of Materials inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 l Technical Quality of Inspections - A.ll.7-10 j Technical Staffing and Training - A.lli.11-15 i 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 1

l i

I 6

DN EO TI CT EP PO XD EA R

- O T

NS EU RT RA T U

C S

- 7

- D E

E T T P

A D O

- D A

E 6 T E 4

4 9 5 6 9 7 8 8

AU 3 9

4 9

9

/

/

5 9

/

6 9

9

/

/

5 7 9

9

/

8 9

9

/ 9 DD /

7

/

1 0

1 1

/

7 2

/

1 2

2 2

/

/

1 5

1

/

1 3

1

/

1

/ / / 0 / / / 0 / / / / /

4 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 7 8 1 3 3 f

t s o y  ; n r e f f n e o s io t

ny o m -

u A isfl U eg it e c P Dair r do ia ic r o E o u

i l f I l d a h q 1 D 0 o ae s t

s

.o R p

d e 6  : 7 t i t ca nt e 3n a n R t

r g0 g r eM on f 9o r t s

r g a a n4 n g it e in 9 h n io 0 y P i p

i n n mtc a nm a

1C ia d 7 m t

e  : e0, i in mu5 ip M to e i

g a ,

a f a m e3 v o od 3 mi t aqu e na n 0 r5 laa '

Co r2 ,

9 2

rh ot A R 4 g3 o S s r dt s k n u is ExE n ogo r r r p3 io r

o r

o ts9, r rt n o pr oa C is oy mi t N pt r

g f

n 3, Pa it 6 cP e:  : m f

rB0, lao n pr io n;P it s isP s O ee n c t e t a3 Rs n g m ef 3 h p I uf dr (e e n4 d 4 i3 es idt r DA n0 o c

fs o s icit d c Se eR T in t o e3 c mn aa dO go i4 e0 net r et e S t nn n0 r mtr in1, eio RP n ni it l

iat asa Mor t

sd E E la 7 P ea 3 gt  ; ae ind Ta r

D 7 rUP an e

mto )s ara t

P , r o iPr f o , dsnr Li S od n ,

T. de fo P Wan U

i L u; n isA i P ll i0 ai 's 0 f U dlat n y 0 c6 4, f

qt n3 ao oe s M ;s s 4, nn oa s yr y

Q l

R nue egm s en o Min ga t

nts in s ,U co e vtio R R med u0 v3 dr a0 Rem it 0, a2 ym i nd sa i

o ia mio mta mr d e0 u da ln3 it anl raico a nt a er ea y

iW uip Lmr t

O F a r n s d2 t p ic s lt i ad nrr in ot inn e s i

qs ptud wo i

C yche nt ei dt a s c n mr aq uoa t r t

F nam

,t sar tara f

ui eI cr f d en ee aa rt ia ebe ee r of 0

AeA EP SP SE NP QM iLf o Da Dm US TP PtriM r FR Li n E 1 L

B A

T

3ilj {l k

l!l!llIio_

DN E

TI O CT EP PO XD

- EA R

O T

NS EU RT RA T US C

8 D

E EP T T A

D O D

A 0 0 0 0 E

T E 8 8 8

9 8

9 9 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0 1 1

0 1 A U 9 9 /

0

/

4 9 9 0 2 2 0

2 0

2 0

0 0

2 0

0 DD /

0 3

/

4 1

2

/

2

/

9

/

/

6 2

/

/

7

/

9

/

7

/

0 2

/

/

2 2

/

/ / 0 1 1

/

1

/

9 2 2 2 2 2 1 9

/ / / / / / /

6 8 1 1 4 6 1 2 5 6 8 1 2

/

7 d  :

s a s y e e n e n in r.

l d ir o la h ia o r eA n it p

a e g iv so t r it gU s r

i r

in n i s a e t

s r

g m d n d e it c ma oe et s ic du nd n u4 r

D n- 1 P d u io A a n h A bl nd es s a n im d nd an d  :

s n u t y d irC la yI e r eo e a o F hc n e ici r e ivb s yI g pf oRu h rl h r t

R n it s A ;s L u ul a T n n pf oi it g t r r e ia n wge n e .

f l oar el J idi ive r

a r sl e c a aC e a r tsi y

f f

o m e d a

i n yA cs n i e t

a ar d a t

gn t an s n o if ic gna r s s r io i t

Un t

iot t

Sed e io ei e do ln io eCon t

i u R s l

ib g y

f e t a InM da e; mF ic a U l

n q f s it r om lam tn et f o ev Ri e y d m;i t a r esc e e o a pne r e u g e eFa t Rin r s L

auc r

b Rine Ri a im m r n . er ei tv meS eit o e

ne r os m mE f i su vt sc aa l

iaqi uo f f

o or t

c la uor qi o r r

iu oi t it ta al r o

c o ic nq Rc a

ein es eo r et a ia nic u

isRr r

eaC t

q ir tr e e Cm ae lao r u e glcm led i

t sRr e r o d n

t e

t cC st D  : o TrR ui Ra u e iM o u yped n R e d ia n 1 t r g d Axe dtyp t i

r t

ue c dt E

L e t

on iM f ot s 7A on Dat f

Rc fo Ee r r g eR hd IneO f C bn is IneOa f

Fc a m n r ay on c e t r l np i

of A irO r aics U a na M l

R nn t nn s d Ai c v e oe no neA od tr er f

oSh p ic a t s

ig e oSh npe t

Po it e o s oe n f ora Dn s n it m inn s :.e itoo t t s g R m. r i

laa ae icr Rt a i

ak nd it t un i

nUa f t iai s eig o tpin i

tar eigd oram F s it ico F ir gsn r in st lo e st ir qiu a aon C iuip r u eq d %.

i a

dd ea i

f la e Cme mo r

ee c

lo e seflu o c ah erei i

t em it niiao edd i

d mt en b i niie edd 0 0t n f r d caa a xo le icaam 1 rE R A MR CR 1 I TR RE RAW CA URR R EC D LRRA

j DN E

TIO CT E P PO XD EA R

O T

NS EU RT RA T US C

~

_ i D

EE T

TP A

DO D A

1 1

~

0 0 E

T E 0

2 0

2 AU /

6

/

0 DD 2

/

2

/

_ 0 1 1 1 a

d n r a, o n

s i g

e M s t;t n sn a ee h finr C n d a

Men g

n iy f dm ir nA a g la e g la n i C.s n smr o

n oh a po sf E it C in Do L c ey U r rC o

rl ic R oo f l r a R CP feic F r r s n C oo nh 0

nn ii a

r c e 1 MM TT

~

.- MATERIALS REQUESTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR '

. THE ONSITE PORTION OF AN IMPEP REV EW ORGANIZATION CHARTS Clean, sized 8% X 11" including names and positions a: One showing positions from Govemor down to Radiation Control Program Director (RCPD) a - One showing positions of current radiation control program with RCPD as Head u Equivalent charts for LLRW and mills programs, if applicable LICENSE LISTS a Printouts of current licenses, showing total, as follows:

Name License # Location License Type Priority Last inspection Due Date Soit alphabetically Also, sort by due date and by priority (if possible) l THE FOLLOWING LISTS I a List of open license cases, with date of original request, and dates of follow up actions a List of licenses terminated during review period. l 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  !

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

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS I a All Stato regulations a Records of results of supervisory a Statutes affecting the regulatory authority of accompaniments of inspectors the state program a Emergency plan and communications list a Standard license conditions a Procedures for investigating allegations a Technical procedures for licensing, model a Enforcement procedures, including licenses, review guides procedures for escalated enforcement, a SS&D review procedures severity levels, civil penalties (as applicable) a Instrum?nt calibration records a Copies of job descriptions a inspection procedures and guides a inspection report forms 10 1

a J