January 10, 2007

Dane L. Finerfrock, Director

Division of Radiation Control

Department of Environmental Quality

168 North 1950 West

P. O. Box 144850

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850

Dear Mr. Finerfrock:

As you are aware, NRC is using the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

(IMPEP) for the evaluation of Agreement State Programs. Per my discussion with you, I will be

the team leader for the IMPEP review of the Utah program scheduled for June 11-15, 2007. 

The team will include Linda McLean, NRC Region IV State Agreements Officer; Jacqueline

Cook from NRC Region IV, Paul Michalak from the NRC Office of Federal and State Materials

and Environmental Management Programs, Earl Fordham from the State of Washington, and

Marion Eaddy from the State of North Carolina. As we discussed, this review will also evaluate

Utah’s implementation of Increased Controls over radioactive materials which exceed quantities

of concern.

Enclosed is the document, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

Questionnaire." The questionnaire was previously furnished to you electronically. I ask that

you send your responses via Internet to JLL2@NRC.GOV by May 28, 2007. I am sending the

document 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 Utah program on the morning of June 15,

2007.

If you have any questions, please call me at (630) 829-9661.

Sincerely,

/RA/

James L. Lynch

Regional State Agreements Officer

Enclosures: 

As stated 

cc w/encl: Dianne Nielson, Utah

 Earl Fordham, Washington

 Marion Eaddy, North Carolina

See attached distribution:

DOCUMENT NAME:C:\FileNet\ML070120334.wpd

G Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive G Non-Sensitive

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copy

OFFICE RIII E RIII RIII RIII

NAME JLynch:jc

DATE 01/10 /07 / /07

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Letter to Dane L. Finerfrock dated Jaunary 10, 2007 

Distribution:

PUBLIC-SP01

J. Schlueter, FSME

S. Moore, FSME

A. McCraw, FSME

P. Michalak, FSME

L. McLean, RIV

L. Wert, Jr., RIV

J. Cook, RIV
 1

 Estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request: 53 hours. Forward comments

regarding burden estimate to the Records Management Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear 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 sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection. 

Enclosure

 Approved by OMB1

No. 3150-0183

Expires 5/31/07

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

QUESTIONNAIRE

Utah

Reporting Period: June 28, 2003 to June 15, 2007

Note: If there has been no change in the response to a specific question since the last IMPEP

questionnaire, the State or Region may copy the previous answer if appropriate. 

A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

I. Technical Staffing and Training

1. Please provide the following organization charts, including names and positions:

(a) A chart showing positions from Governor down to Radiation Control

Program Director;

(b) A chart showing positions of current radiation control program

including management; and

(c) Equivalent charts for sealed source and device, low level radioactive

waste and uranium recovery programs, if applicable

2. 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

offices, the table should be consolidated to include all personnel contributing to

the radioactive materials program. Include all vacancies and identify all senior

personnel assigned to monitor work of junior personnel. If consultants were

used to carry out the program's radioactive materials responsibilities, include

their efforts. The table heading should be:

Name Position Area of Effort FTE%

3. Please provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since the last

review, indicate the degree(s) they received, if applicable, and additional training

and years of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate. 
2 Enclosure

4. Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the qualification

requirements of license reviewer/materials inspection staff (for NRC, Inspection

Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246; for Agreement States, please enclose a copy of

your qualification and training procedure. If you do not have a written procedure

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.

5. Please identify the technical staff who left the Agreement State/Regional DNMS

program during this period.

6. List the vacant positions in each program, the length of time each position has

been vacant, and a brief summary of efforts to fill the vacancy.

7. Does the Agreement State program have an oversight board or committee which

provides direction to the program and is composed of licensees and other

members of the public? If so, please describe the procedures used to avoid a

conflict of interest.

II. Status of Materials Inspection Program

8. Please identify individual licensees or categories of licensees the State/Region is

inspecting more or less frequently than called for in IMC 2800 and state the

reason for the difference.

9. Please provide for the review period, the number of Priority 1, 2, and 3

inspections as identified in IMC 2800 that were completed and the number of

initial inspections that were completed. 

10. Please submit a table, or a computer printout, that identifies inspections of

Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees, and initial inspections that are presently overdue or

which were conducted at intervals that exceed the IMC 2800 frequencies over

the course of the entire review period. (See STP Procedure SA-101, Reviewing

the Common Performance Indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, for

detailed guidance in preparing this information). 

At a minimum, the list should include the following information for each

inspection that is overdue or conducted overdue during the review period:

(1) Licensee Name

(2) License Number

(3) Priority

(4) Last inspection date or license issued date if initial inspection

(5) Date Due

(6) Date Performed

(7) Amount of Time Overdue

(8) Date inspection findings issued

11. If you have any overdue inspections, do you have an action plan for completing

them? If so, please describe the plan or provide a written copy with your

response to this questionnaire. 
3 Enclosure

12. Please provide the number of reciprocity licensees that were candidates for

inspection per year as described in NRC IMC 1220 and the number of candidate

reciprocity inspections that were completed each year during the review period.

III. Technical Quality of Inspections

13. What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during

the reporting period?

14. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments

made during the review period. Include:

Inspector Supervisor License Category Date

15. Describe internal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of

inspectors in the field. 

16. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation, methods of calibration

and laboratory capabilities. Are all instruments properly calibrated at the present

time? Were there sufficient calibrated instruments available through the review

period?

IV. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

17. How many specific radioactive material licenses does the Program regulate at

this time? 

18. 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. 

19. Discuss any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptions from

the regulations granted during the review period.

20. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new

procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?

21. Identify by licensee name, license number and type, any renewal applications

that have been pending for one year or more. Please indicate why these reviews

have been delayed.

V. Responses to Incidents and Allegations 

22. For Agreement States, please provide a list of any reportable incidents not

previously submitted to NRC (See STP Procedure SA-300, Reporting Material

Events for additional guidance, OMB clearance number 3150-0178). The list

should be in the following format:
4 Enclosure

Licensee Name License # Date of Incident/Report Type of

Incident

 23. 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 NRC? For Regions, was an appropriate

and timely PN generated? For Agreement States, 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.

24. Identify any changes to your procedures for handling allegations that occurred

during the period of this review. 

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. 

Provide the results of any program audits (including self audits) completed

during the review period.

26. Provide a brief description of your program's strengths and weaknesses. These

strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, new

initiatives, problems or difficulties which occurred during this review period.

B. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

I. Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

27. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control

program.

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 review and verify that the information in the current Utah State Regulation

Status sheet (see http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/special/regs/ut_srschart.pdf ) is correct. 

For those regulations that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they

were not adopted, and discuss actions being taken to adopt them.

If legally binding requirements were used in lieu of regulations, please describe

their use.

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 Program
5 Enclosure

31. Prepare a table listing new and amended (including transfers to inactive status) 

SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issued during the review

period. The table heading should be:

SS&D Manufacturer,

Registry Distributor or Product Type Date Type of 

 Number Custom User or Use Issued Action

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 - Questions 1-7

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - Questions 17-21

Responses to Incidents and Allegations - Questions 22-24

III. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

34. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply

to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program: 

Technical Staffing and Training - Questions 1-7

Status of Materials Inspection Program - Questions 8-11

Technical Quality of Inspections - Questions 13-16

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - Questions 17-21

Responses to Incidents and Allegations - Questions 22-24
6 Enclosure

IV. Uranium Recovery Program

35. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply

to the Uranium Recovery Program: 

Technical Staffing and Training - Questions 1-7

Status of Materials Inspection Program - Questions 8-11

Technical Quality of Inspections - Questions 13-16

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - Questions 17-21

Responses to Incidents and Allegations - Questions 22-24
7 Enclosure

MATERIALS REQUESTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR 

THE ONSITE PORTION OF AN IMPEP REVIEW

Please have the following information available for use by the IMPEP review team when

they arrive at your office:

9 List of open license cases, with date of original request, and dates of follow up

actions

9 List of licenses terminated during review period.

9 Copy of current log or other document used to track licensing actions

9 Copy of current log or other document used to track inspections

9 List of Inspection frequency by license type

9 List of all allegations occurring during the review period. Show whether the

allegation is open or closed and whether it was referred by NRC

ALSO, PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: 

9 All State regulations

9 Statutes affecting the regulatory

authority of the state program

9 Standard license conditions

9 Technical procedures for licensing,

model licenses, review guides

9 SS&D review procedures

9 Instrument calibration records

9 Inspection procedures and guides

9 Inspection report forms

9 Records of results of supervisory

accompaniments of inspectors

9 Emergency plan and

communications list

9 Procedures for investigating

allegations

9 Procedures for investigating

incidents

9 Enforcement procedures, including

procedures for escalated

enforcement, severity levels, civil

penalties (as applicable)

9 Job descriptions