ML20029E869
| ML20029E869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/02/2020 |
| From: | Anthony Mcmurtray Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| McMurtray A/NMSS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062A001 | List: |
| References | |
| CN 20-012 | |
| Download: ML20029E869 (7) | |
Text
Agreement State Comment Resolution Draft Phase 2 Revision to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 Comment Source Location Comment Added Remarks No.
The draft revision to IMC 2800 includes significant changes and the Web-Based Yes, the NRC is working with the WBL software Licensing System (WBL) may not currently be developers to ensure that any necessary changes able to accommodate these changes. For states
- 1. resulting from the proposed changes to IMC 2800 Wisconsin IMC 2800 that use WBL, will the Nuclear Regulatory N will be incorporated or reflected in WBL as well.
Commission submit change requests to Agreement States will not need to submit incorporate these changes or will the additional change requests.
Agreement States each be responsible for submitting change requests?
Priority R is referenced in multiple instances but this term is used inconsistently throughout The document has been revised to more the document. It references both an inspection consistently use Priority 5R as only an 2.
Wisconsin IMC 2800 type and an inspection priority. It may be helpful Y inspection priority and remote inspection as an to provide clarity on how to use and assign inspection option. The assignment of Priority 5R is Priority R; should it be based on program addressed in other NRC guidance.
code, inspection location difficulty, etc.?
Clarification is needed on if comprehensive Inspections conducted at a reduced interval are inspections performed at a reduce inspection still part of the routine inspection program.
interval are considered routine or non-routine Section 06.02(b) states that the inspection and over what window of time can other scheduling window is still applicable to the next
- 3. changes in inspection interval occur such that inspection date based on the licensees normal Wisconsin IMC 2800 N the combined effort of limited scope inspections inspection priority. The guidance in this document are comprehensive. As drafted the eligibility will provide consistency among the NRC regions; window and next inspection interval for these however, Agreement States may set their own could vary greatly among regions and inspection scheduling windows up to those Agreement States. permitted in IMC 2800.
Wisconsin also noticed inconsistent use of We appreciate the comment. Formatting has been
- 4. formatting regarding section numbering and Wisconsin IMC 2800 Y reviewed to comport with Inspection Manual indentation, particularly under 05.01 General Chapter template guidance and consistency.
Inspection Process.
Wisconsin supports the concept of Remote The document has been revised to more Contacts but thinks this term should broadly
- 5. consistently use Priority 5R as only an Wisconsin Section 03.10 apply to all inspection types and not just Priority Y inspection priority and remote inspection as an R inspections. It is conceivable to have remote inspection option.
contacts as an element of other inspections.
- 6. Wisconsin supports moving field inspections The working group appreciates the support Wisconsin Section 03.13 N under the routine inspection category. through this comment.
Page 1
Agreement State Comment Resolution Draft Phase 2 Revision to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 Comment Source Location Comment Added Remarks No.
The pathway for Supervisors of Regional Materials Inspection Programs to propose changes to the inspection program is unclear.
Wisconsin supports the existence of a pathway The working group added a new Section 2800-13 for programmatic changes in NRC starting at
- 7. to describe the process for submitting feedback Wisconsin Section 04.05(f) the ground level but it is unclear who Y and recommendations on the materials inspection supervisors propose changes to, how the program.
proposed changes are reviewed, and how they are tracked within the process. It is understood that Agreements States will have their own management structure to do the equivalent.
The document was revised to add a definition for The third paragraph describes when an limited scope inspections and this statement inspection can officially be considered to be regarding when an inspection can be considered 8.
OAS Section 2800-05 performed. This description is potentially Y to be performed was deleted to avoid confusion.
contradictory to the definition of a non-routine The subsequent paragraph on when an inspection inspection, specifically item 2) of the definition. is not considered to be performed was also revised to provide additional clarification.
The Safety Culture Awareness section provides little detail on which specifics elements This paragraph was revised to provide clarification of safety culture should be reviewed on that safety culture is not required by regulation.
inspections. If the expectation is that a
- 9. There is no regulatory basis that a licensees Wisconsin Section 05.01 licensees safety culture is inspected routinely, Y safety culture be inspected. A link to the NRC more detail needs to be provided in this section.
Safety Culture information was added to the It could also be helpful to reference the NRCs paragraph as well.
Safety Culture Policy Statement or inspection procedures.
The working group appreciates this comment in The terms Previous Items and open issues the spirit of consistency. After additional review, are used but are not defined. Are these the working group identified interchangeable use synonymous? Do they reference open violations of the terms previous items, open issues, and 10.
Wisconsin Section 05.01(b) or previous violations? Consistent language Y open items. For consistency, the working group should be used when referencing previous aligned on the term open item and has inspection issues. The term open issues is consistently applied it throughout the document.
also used on page 11 of the document. The document was also revised to add a definition of open items.
Page 2
Agreement State Comment Resolution Draft Phase 2 Revision to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 Comment Source Location Comment Added Remarks No.
The information provided beyond the first paragraph is not instructive and unnecessary given that the inspector should ultimately consult with their supervisor on the matter.
Wisconsin recommends shortening this section to the following:
Requests from Licensees for Assistance. On occasion, licensees ask inspectors for help resolving issues. Inspectors are prohibited from recommending the services of specific The working group believes that the level of detail 11.
Wisconsin Section 05.01(d) individuals or organizations for a project under N is necessary to provide guidance to new NRC regulatory jurisdiction. Providing such a inspectors and supervisors.
recommendation violates 5 CFR 2635.702, which prohibits Federal employees from using public office for endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise. However, the agency also has an obligation to provide assistance where possible in helping individual licensees solve problems that affect public health and safety; the inspector should consult with their supervisor on the matter.
Clarification on the 18-month initial inspection is The document was revised to clarify that an initial
- 12. Section needed. Is there an inspection window on the Wisconsin Y inspection is due within 12 months with a 05.02(a)(5) 18 months? Should it be 18 months +/- 6 permissible extension up to 18 months.
months?
Voluntary license termination is one of several possible options. The intent of this sentence is to If this reminder from the licensee is intended to
- 13. Section use the onsite inspection as a reminder to the Wisconsin initiate voluntary license termination, it should N 05.02(b)(4) licensee of this referenced requirements and be stated in this manual.
discuss possible options depending on the licensees future plans.
The document was revised to clarify that an initial Similar to the comment above, provide inspection is due within 12 months with a clarification on if there are inspection windows permissible extension up to 18 months.
for when initial inspections are extended beyond
- 14. Section Wisconsin the initial 12-month timeframe. Wisconsin also Y 05.02(b)(6) The working group believes the requirement to disagrees with the concept of multiple initial perform an initial onsite inspection is necessary inspections if the licensee still has not received from a trust but verify standpoint and is not a licensed material.
deviation from current guidance.
Page 3
Agreement State Comment Resolution Draft Phase 2 Revision to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 Comment Source Location Comment Added Remarks No.
Wisconsin suggests that this information be This comment was addressed in part by adding a represented in a table. For example, 1-2 table. The working group believes that the
- 15. Section locations = minimum of 1 site; 3-9 locations =
Wisconsin Y required number of locations can be easily 05.03(a)(1) minimum of 2 sites. The table should only have calculated based on the information presented in a percentage for the very last (highest) the table.
category.
The working group believes that the revision It would be beneficial to have a better changing remote contact to remote inspection
- 16. Section Wisconsin description of when a remote contact is Y (and other associated changes throughout the 05.03(a)(1) appropriate. document) provides maximum flexibility and is responsive to this comment.
Wisconsin thinks it is unnecessary to require documentation/justification for why temporary jobsites were not inspected in every case. The The working group believes the documentation is emphasis should be that a comprehensive important and believes that the latter portion of inspection includes review of licensed activities your comments aligns with the intent of the at temporary jobsites. If the inspector makes a documentation. It is intended to be a quick note to reasonable attempt at 5.03 b. 1. through 3., indicate whether any additional action (e.g.,
additional documentation would be inspection efforts, license amendments, etc.) may unnecessary. However, it would be important to be needed. It can also serve as a note to the next
- 17. Section document those instances that a temporary inspector to prioritize a temporary job site Wisconsin N 05.03(b)(4) jobsite inspections was not possible and other inspection and perhaps even to plan and/or action is needed, e.g. work is done outside of announce the inspection to ensure that activities inspectors jurisdiction and coordination outlined at a temporary job site can be inspected. The in 2800-10 and 2800-11 should be pursued, overall goal is to ensure that the most risk-temporary jobsite work is no longer performed significant activities authorized by the license are and the licensee should modify their being inspected at a reasonable frequency in the authorization, access was not granted to the spirit of a performance-based, risk-informed inspector due restrictions imposed by licensees inspection program.
client and specialized training or PPE must be acquired for future attempts, etc.
- 18. Section The Board recommends that management The document was revised to delete the term OAS Y 06.02(a)(3) paragraph be defined. management paragraph.
Page 4
Agreement State Comment Resolution Draft Phase 2 Revision to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 Comment Source Location Comment Added Remarks No.
In the last paragraph, the reference to IP 87103 There is explicit additional guidance on the is redundant with the first paragraph in the same conduct of exit meetings for reactive inspections section and the rest of the information is not in IP 87103 that differs from the general guidance 19.
Wisconsin Section 07.01(a) instructive beyond other sections that discuss N for inspection exit meetings found in Section exit meetings and the inspection procedures. 05.01 of this document; therefore, the working Wisconsin recommends that this paragraph be group believes it is important to retain the last deleted. paragraph.
The working group recognized the need for additional flexibility in the scheduling of escalated There needs to be more flexibility to extend the enforcement followup inspections in the followup inspection beyond 12 months if the development of the Phase 2 revision and built issue that prompted escalated enforcement is a flexibility into the scheduling by revising the 12 month requirement or otherwise infrequent statement to use the word should instead of 20.
Wisconsin Section 07.03 occurrence. Wisconsin suggests either a 12 N shall. The working group believes the scheduling month +/- 6 month window, within 18 months of of escalated enforcement followup inspections the action letter, or adding flexibility such that should be at the discretion of the regulator based followup is decided on a case-by-case basis on the significance of the finding and the ease of and require documenting the rational. ensuring that the licensee took prompt and appropriate corrective action relative to the finding.
The working group added additional flexibility by Wisconsin supports the idea of a risk-informed adding a statement that regional offices may approach and also supports all licensees as develop their own goals and methods similar to
- 21. being eligible for inspection. Wisconsin also Wisconsin Section 07.04 Y the allowances afforded to Agreement States in supports using a metric to ensure some level of NMSS Procedure SA-101, Reviewing the reciprocity accountability but believes it should Common Performance Indicator, Status of be higher than 5%.
Materials Inspection Program.
The working group believes that this section as A defined inspection window for significantly currently written provides the regulator maximum expanded programs should be established. Is it
- 22. discretionary flexibility to coordinate with the Wisconsin Section 07.05 similar to the inspection window for initial N licensing program to establish an appropriate inspections or will it be determined using a risk inspection date commensurate with the change(s) informed methodology?
being made to the license.
Page 5
Agreement State Comment Resolution Draft Phase 2 Revision to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 Comment Source Location Comment Added Remarks No.
Sentences were added in both Section 08.01 and 08.02 to clearly indicate that these activities are not inspections.
- 23. It should be clearly stated that a Pre-licensing Wisconsin Section 08.01 Y Visit is not an inspection. The working group also noted that the definition of Inspection in Section 03.02 also states that these visits do not meet the definition of an inspection.
This section describes how and when narrative This section establishes guidance to NRC inspection reports are required, including all management and staff on the documentation of team inspections (more than 3 people), potential inspections and is not a matter of compatibility for escalated enforcement actions, and reactive Agreement States. Documenting inspections in 24.
OAS Section 09.02 inspections for events. This could potentially be N general is a matter of adequacy for Agreement a compatibility issue with states that use States; however, Agreement States have the checklists and other standard formats as the ultimate flexibility in how they choose to document primary method for documenting inspection their inspections. No change was made to the results. document as a result of this comment.
The working group believes that such specificity is not necessary. The working group believes that Wisconsin supports the concepts of this section as currently written provides flexibility coordination among regional offices, Agreement for coordination among co-regulators to optimize States, and other agencies. However, the use of resources across the National Materials clarification is needed on the priority assigned to
- 25. Section 2800-10 Program. This section is an optional tool that can Wisconsin information received/shared among Agreement N and 2800-11 be used in the inspection program and is States and the NRC. Is this information treated completely voluntary. Information and similarly to allegations? Are agencies required coordination efforts will not be tracked like to follow up on the information shared or are allegation information, nor will they be reviewed these communications allowed to be dismissed?
under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP).
Page 6
Agreement State Comment Resolution Draft Phase 2 Revision to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 Comment Source Location Comment Added Remarks No.
The MOUs in this section do not extend to the Agreement States; however, the working group did not identify any areas that would disrupt Do the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) current Agreement State authorities or operations, that the NRC has with other Federal agencies thereby necessitating individual MOUs between
- 26. extend to Agreement States? It is understood Wisconsin Section 2800-12 N the Agreement States and these Federal that this document only pertains to NRC, but the Agencies. Applicable requirements from other question is regarding if Agreement States Federal Agencies are codified in NRC regulations should establish similar MOUs.
and the Agreement States will implement the requirements in accordance with NRC Management Directive 5.9.
Page 7