ML20154F061

Submits Summary of Comments on SA-106,Mgt Review Board,Sent to Agreement State for Comment on 980827 Re SP-98-073

ML20154F061
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/25/1998
From:	NRC
To:	NRC
References
SP-98-073, SP-98-73, NUDOCS 9810090057
Download: ML20154F061 (5)

Text

l 06D@poQ pQ q ls l

l' 0 h e

September 25,1998

SUMMARY

OF COMMENTS ON SA-106, MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD Sent to the Agreement States for Comment: August 27,1998 (SP-98-073)

Comments Received:

Washington, 8/31/98 Response to/ Resolution of Comments:

Comment 1:

Page 2 - the use of "approximately" in conjunction with a precise "74 days" seems odd. I wouldn't have blinked if you had used "approximately 75 days"(or some multiple of five or ten.)

And why 104 days rather than 100 days or 105 days? Is "74 days" a " deadline" or are these goals amounting to "two and a half months" and "three and a half months" respectively?

B_esponse:

The original goal for issuance of IMPEP reports was 90 days based on experience of program reviews prior to IMPEP. Through experience, staff found that many States requested four weeks instead of the projected two weeks to respond to the draft report. The timeliness goal was revised by adding an additional 14 days to the overall goal. OSP performance is measured against the specific goal of 104 days and therefore cannot be treated as an approximate time period. The 74-day milestone is not a performance measure for OSP and thus the use of the term " approximate" is appropriate.

Comment 2:

Page 2 - Allowing a " report supplement"in cases where the overall program adequacy and compatibility findings might not be resolved at the time of the MRB meeting seems like a good idea (that should be discouraged!) Potentially this get us right back to the time when adequacy and compatibility issues for a state were up in the air for a long, long time because of the NRC internal processing. This seems like a case where the MRB needs to make a timely decision and if that is " heightened oversight" or requiring a return visit from the IMPEP team then so be it! At the very least you should put some sort of limitation on the length of time outstanding areas are allowed to remain pending resolution.

Response

This will be an exception rather than the normal process for issuance of the IMPEP report.

Staff included this possibility in the procedure to document the process to be used to deal with situations where there are outstanding issues. If experience indicates that lengthy delays are associated with report supplements, establishing a time limitation will be considered.

Comment 3:

Page 3, item 5. b. - The sentence reads " funny to me: perhaps you mean "the MRB will consider lifting the heightened oversight status after a follow-up review conducted by an IMPEP review team or after an OSP recommendation if no follow-up review is conducted." OR "the MRB will consider lifting the heightened oversight status after a follow-up review conducted by D

an IMPEP review team or after a similar review conducted by OSP" However, given the j

context of all the rest of the procedures related to IMPEP, perhaps you should just drop this

{ [ j.N

7. L_,.

q

-~".f h*0~Y

.. )

9810090057 980925

')

$f # -

PDR STPRO ESGOEN O

PDR

^

l reference to OSP! (Leave the IMPEP team to do its work). See the fourth paragraph of current 1

Appendix A (page 7) which only refers to the IMPEP team.

Resoonse:

Staff will revise Section V.A.S.b. as follows:

The MRB will consider lifting the heightened oversight status after a follow-up review conducted by an IMPEP review team or after a simiist review conducted by OSP, NMSS or a Region if no follow-up review is conducted.

.CommenL4:

Pages 5,7 I think the order of the attachments should flow chronologically: the first attachment to this procedures should be the one most often used, namely the memo to the l

MRB setting up the meeting that occurs with every IMPEP review. The second and third attachments should be very rarely used and deal with setting up the " heightened oversight" and then reporting the results after it is over.

Response

The order of the attachments is based on the order they appear in the procedure. There will be no change to the procedure based on this comment.

Comment 5 Pages 10 There may be some confusion here. If the Agenda for the MRB always comes as an attachment to the memo in current Appendix C, then the text of the memo (page 10) should be adjusted accordingly ("This memorandum transmits to the MRB a proposed agenda (attachment 1) and a proposed final report (attachment 2)...) and then you can leave the agenda as " Appendix C -Attachment 1".

I think it is needlessly confusing to call the same item

" attachment 1"in one place and " attachment 2"in another!

Response

We agree with this comment. The procedure has been revised to remove the reference to Appendix C-Attachment 1.

Comment 6:

Page 10 - the " title" needs to be corrected by inserting "to" following " DRAFT SAMPLE:

Memorandum" and preceding "the Management Review Board".

Response

We agree with the comment and the change will be made.

Sent to the NRC Affected Offices for Comment: August 27,1998 Comments Received:

A. R. Blough, RI, 9/4/98 L. A. Reyes, Ril,9/10/98 J. L. Caldwell, Rlli,9/8/98 M. L. McLean, RIV, 9/14/98 C. J. Paperiello, NMSS, 9/9/98 T. T. Martin, AEOD,9/11/98 l

l 2

i R. Virgiliio, OSP,9/14/98 J. O. Thoma, OEDO, 9/15/98 H. H. Newsome, OGC,9/16/98 Response to/ Resolution of Comments:

Region i No comments.

Region il No comments.'

Region lli Comment Appendix C - Attachment i should be revised to update the indicator titles and presentation order to reflect the current Management Directive 5.6, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program."

Response

We agree with the comment and the change will be made.

Region IV No comments.

NMSS Comment 1:

' Add the following sentence to the paragraph in Section V.A.1:

MRB meetings may take place beyond the 74* day in order to assemble a quorum to accommodate Agreement State / Regional schedules, and/or to incorporate important supplemental material. However, every effort should be made by OSP and NMSS to meet the timeliness goal for issuing the final reports in 104 days.

Response

We agree with the comment and the change will be made.

Comment 2:

In Section V.A.5., V.A.S.a. and b include reference to the Region and NMSS as appropriate.

Response

We agree with the comment and the changes will be made, Comment 3:

In Section V.A.5.c. add the following sentence:

i 3

1 1

'i l

In the event the Region does not correct such deficiencies, additional corrective actions will be addressed intemally on a case-by-case basis. (See Section V.A.9.)

Response

We agree with the comment and the changes will be made.

Comment 4:

In Section V.A.9., insert "(including the Director, NMSS)."

Resoonse:

We agree with the comment and the changes will be made.

Comment 5:

Revise the phrase "by the NMSS' program analyst' to "by NMSS."

Response.

We agree with the comment and the changes will be made.

Comment 6:

~

All references tt:.greement States in Appendix A should be expanded to include the Regions.

Insert the following sentence at the end of the last paragraph:

The need for additional remedial actions by a Region will be monitored by NMSS (via the Operating Plan) on at least a quarterly basis with actions coordinated through the EDO.

Response

. We agree with the comment

.i the changes will be made.

-AEOD Comment:

We suggest that Section IV of this procedure, " Roles and Responsibilities," list AEOD's technical input as a member of the Management Review Board for the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Reviews. Such input includes incident response and nuclear material events database-related issues.

Response.

We agree with the comment and the changes will be made.

OEDO' Comment:

For Section V.A.1., why not say "approximately no later than" instead of just "approximately."

Response

Additional revisions have been made to this section based on NMSS comment 1 clarifying this

- section. No additional revisions are necessary.

4 i

Comment:

Section V.B. and V.C. do not clearly indicate that OSP has the lead responsibility for Agreement j

State MRBs and that NMSS has the responsibility for Regional MRBs.

i

Response

Section IV.D. and IV.E. do state that the lead responsibilities for each office. However, staff will modify Section V.B.1 and V.C.1. to note the lead responsibilities.

OGC No legal objections.

1 1

l 5

l