ML20199E034
| ML20199E034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/26/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | GENERAL, OHIO, STATE OF, OKLAHOMA, STATE OF, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199E037 | List: |
| References | |
| SP-98-005, SP-98-5, NUDOCS 9802020076 | |
| Download: ML20199E034 (10) | |
Text
'
panau e
a '-
4 UNITED STATES s
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "o
e WASHINOToN, D.C. 20656 0001
%,,,,,,/
January 26, 1998 ALL AGREEMENT STATES OHIO, OKLAHOMA. PENNSYLVANIA TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-98005)
Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:
INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION.......
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION....XX DRAFT REVISION TO MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE AND HANDBOOK 5.6, PART IV ON THE INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
]
TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION........
TECHNICAL INFORMATION...
OTHER INFORMATION.............
. Supplementary Information: In the June 30,1997 Staff Requirements Memorandum, SECY-97-54, Final Recommendations on Policy Statement and Implementing Procedures for:
" Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program" and " Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," the Commission directed the staff to prepare guidance for the Management Review Board regarding adequacy and compatibility L
determinations. The Commission also directed that the guidance be such that Agreement
?
States could perform self assessments of their programs, should they choose to do so, with some confidence that the NRC's review would produce similar conclusions.
Enclosed for your review and comments is a draft revision to Part IV of Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) Management Directive and Handbook 5.6 which incorporates the guidance for the MRB and additional experience gained from IMPEP reviews.
We would appreciate your comments by thirty days from your receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions about this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.
t CONTACT:
Kathleen N. Schneider TELEPHONE:
(301)415-2320
)
FAX:
(301) 415-3502 FE u 7 C INTERNET:
KXS@NRC. GOV 9802020076 980126 PDR STPRG ESGGEN
$ f_ (Y PDR 7,m-muvcw
- evq4 3 ll ll l,l llll lll ll.
1'-
- sp.98 005 :
This information request has been approved by OMB 3150-0029, expiration April 30,1998.
The estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request is 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
Forward any comments regarding the 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 (3150-0052), Office of Management and Budget. Washington, DC 20503. If a document does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information.
MJl 6 14 G1 Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated e
I i
SP 005
- This information request has been approved by OMB 3150-0029, expiration April 30,1998.
The estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection _ request is 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
Forward any comments regarding the burden estimate to the Information and Records l
Management Branch (T-6 F33), U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0052), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. If a document does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information.
OrigheJ Signed By RICHARD L eAWRT Richard L. Bangart, Director l
Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated I
Distribution:
DIR RF DC,D (SP03)
SDroggitis
- PDR (YES./_) (NO_)
OSP Staff A/S File FAXED TO STATES: 01/26/98 IMPEP File
- MEM0 FR C. PAPERIELLO DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KXS\\SP98005.KNS
- See Previous Concurrence.
Ta receive a cop" of this document, Ind6cate in the bos: "C" e4 O h attachment /enctosure "r = Corn we attachment / enclosure JN" = No copy OFFICE OSP l
O$$Jip NMSS:D OSP:D[/g NAME KSchneidernb:kk PLohadj\\
CPaperiello RLBangarti Vid DATE 01/09/98
- 01/1/98 01/2398**
01/M /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-A-4; SP-l-2
Sp.98-a
+
Fonvard anf comments regarding the burden estimate to the Information and Records Manageme nt Branch (T-6 F33), U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.-
20505-000?, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0052), Office of Man Budget. Waehington, DC 20503. If a document does not display a currently valid OMB c numbei, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person in not required to reso a
collecticn ofinformation.
/
Richard L. Bangart, Dire 6 tor Office of State Prograr(1s
/-
Enclosure:
,/
As stated
/
/'
/
(
/
/
/
,/
/
Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP03)
SDroggitis PDR (YES.L) (NO_)
c OSP Staff /
A/S File '
FAXED TO STATES:
IMPEP File
/
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KXS\\SP98000.KNS; G:\\KXS\\PARTIV.KNS Ta receive a cop r of this document. Indicate in the box: 'C" = Cooy wthout attachment / enclosure T = Copr wth attachmenUenclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP g8 OSP:DD OSP:D NAME-KSchneider: rib PLohaus RBangart DATE 01/4/98 01/ /98 01/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-A-4; SP-l-2
Part IV Programmatic Assessment General (A)
A management review board (MRB) will make the overall usessment of each NRC region's or Agreement State's program, on the basis of the proposed final repoit and recommendations prepared by the team that conducted the review of that reg;on or State, including any unique circumstances. Additionally, the overall ascessment will include a consideration of information provided by the region or State at the MRB meeting, in addition to a recommended overall finding, the proposed final report will contain the team's recommendations for each common indicator and each applicable non-common indicator for both Agreement States and NRC regions. (1)
The MRB will consist of a group of senior NRC managers, or their designees, to include-(2)
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs, as Chair (a)
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (b)
Director, Office of State Programs (c) l Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (d)
General Counsel (e)
The Organization of Agreement States also will be invited to specify a representative to serve as a member of each MRB, as a non-voting Agreement State liaison. In this capacity, the State representative will receive applicable documentation and engage in all MRB discussions. The Agreement State liaison does not have voting authority, since this function is reserved solely to NRC. The Agreement State liaison representative is expected to provide an Agreement State perspective on any matter that is voted on by the MRB. (3)
Fo* - NRC region, the MRB will only assess the adequacy of the program to protect public he.m and safety. For an Agreement State program review, the MRB will assess both adequacy and compatibility. (4)
Adequacy Findings for Agreement 5.. ate Programs (B)
Finding 1 - Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety (1)
If the MRB finds that a State program is satisfactory for all performance indicators, the State's program will be found adequate to protect public health and safety, unless unique concerns that impact adequacy are identified. (a)
If the MRB finds that a State program is satisfactory with recommendations for 1
l
improvement for two or less performance indicators and satisfactory for all remaining performance indical Jrs, the MRB should consider whether the State's program is adequate or adequate but needs improvement. (b) i Finding 2 - Adeqate, But Needs improvement (2)
If the MRB finda t tat a State program is satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for two or less performance indicators and satisfactory for all remaining performance indicators, the MRB should consider whether the State's program is adequate or adequate but needs improvement. (a)
If the MRB finds that a State program protects public her and safety, but is found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for three or more performance indicators and satisfactory for the remaining performance indicators, the MRB should give strong consideration to finding the State's program adequate, but needs improvement. (b) l If the MRB finds that a State program protects public health and safety, but is found unsatisfactory for one or more performance indicators and satisfactory or satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for the remaining performance indicators, the MRB should give strong consideration to finding the State's program adequate, but needs improvement. (c)
In cases where previous recommendations associated with adequate, but needs improvement indicator findings have not been completed for a significant period of time beyond the originally scheduled date, the MRB also may find that the program is adequate, but needs improvement. (d)
Finding 3 - Inadequate to Protect Public Health and Safety (3) j If the MRB finds that a State program is not capable of reasonably assuring public health and safety for any reason, the MRB would find that the State's program is inadequate to protect public health and safety.
Compatibility Findings for Agreement State Progra'ms (C)
Finding 1 - Compatible (1)
If the MRB determines that a State program does not create conflicts, gaps, or disruptive duplication in the collective national effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act materials, the program would be found compatible.
Finding 2 - Not Compatible (2)
If the MRB determines that a State program creates unnecessary gaps, conflicts, or disruptive duplication in the cellective national effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act materials, the program would be found not compatible.
2
Adequacy Findings for NRC Regional Programs (D).
The MRB adequacy findings for regional programs will be the same as those listed above for Agreement States.
Guidance for MRB Determinations for Agreement State Programs (E)
For most Agreement State reviews, no action other than issuance of the final IMPEP report is needed. For thoso infrequent reviews where additional action is needed, the following alternatives should be considered.
Heightened Oversight (1)
When one or more of the common and non-common performance indicators are found unsatisfactory and are of such safety significance that assurance of the program's ability to protect the public health may be degraded, heightened oversight by the NRC will be considered by the MRB. When strong commitments to improve their program have been made by the Agreement State at the Department Director management level, the MRB will consider heightened oversight, if the MRB believes the actions by the Agreement State will result in necessary program improvements and the State is capable of implementing those commitments. Heightened oversight could include requests for an Agreement State program
-Improvement plan, periodic Agreement State progress reports, periodic NRC/ Agreement State conference calls, and a follow-up review by the IMPEP team.
I Probation (2)
The MRB will consider probation for an Agreement State using OSP Internal Procedure D.23,
" Procedure for Placing an Agreement State on Probation" as a reference. Probation is appropriate for MRB consideration when an Agreement State is found adequate but needs improvement or not compatible and any of the following circumstances occur: (a)
When one or more of the common and non-common performance indicators are found unsatisfactory and are of such safety significance that assurance of the program's ability to protect the public health may be degraded, heightened oversight by the NRC is required, and heightened oversight without a formal declaration of probation may not result in necessary program improvements. (l)
When previously identified programmatic deficiencies have gone uncorrected for a significant period of time beyond which the corrective actions had been originally scheduled for completion and the NRC is not confident of the State's ability to correct such deficiencies in an expeditious and effective manner without heightenec oversight and a formal probation declaration by the NRC. (ii) 3 a
,6 e
When a program has repeatedly been late in adopting required compatibility elements and only heightened oversight by NRC together with a formal declaration of probation would yield improvements. (iii) l The following are examples of Agreement State program deficiencies where the MRB would consider probation for an Agreement State. This list is not all inclusive and other Agreement State program deficiencies may require consideration. (b)
The Agreement State repeatedly fails to identify design deficiencies in follow-up analysis of events or incidents involving sealed sources and devices. (i)
Inability to retain skilled staff resulting in increased backlog in inspections and deficiencies in the technical quality of inspection and licensing programs. (ii)
Inability / difficulty in adopting regulations which could result in significant impacts across State boundaries or allows licensees to be subject to less stringent requirements than NRC requirements determined to be necessary to sa. N compatibility criteria. (iii)
Suspension (3)
The MRB will consider if suspension of an agreement is required to protect public health and safety, or if the State has not complied with one or more of the requirements of Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, in accordance with OSP Internal Procedure D.22, " Procedure for Suspension of a Section 274b Agreement" when any of the following circumstances occur: (a)
In cases where the MRB finds that program deficiencies related to either adequacy or compatibility are such that the NRC must take action, the MRB will recommend to the Commission to suspend all or part of its agreement with the State. (i)
In cases where the State radiation contrd program has not complied with one or more requirements of the Act, i.e., the State program is not compatible with the NRC program and the State has refused or is unable to address those areas previously identified as compatibility concerns and the non-compatibility is disruptive to the national program conducted by NRC and Agreement States for the regulation of Atomic Energy Act material. (ii)
Suspension, rather than termination, will be the preferred option in those cases where the MRB believes that the State has provided evidence that the program deficiencies are temporary and that the State is committed to i,nplementing program improvements. (b)
Termination (4)
The MRB will cons ier termination for an Agreement State in accordance with OSP Internal Procedures D.21, ' Procedure for Termination of a Section 274b Agreement" when any of the following circumstances occur: (a) 4
The State radiation control program is found to be inadequate to protect public health and safety, and no compensating program has been implemented; (i)
The State has been on probation for a period of time during which it failed to respond to NRC concerns regarding the State's ability to carry out a program to protect public l
health and safety; or (ii) l The State radiation control program is not compatible with the NRC program and the State has refused, or is unable, to address those areas previously ide,1tified as compatibility concerns and the non-compatibility is significantly disruptive to the national program among NRC and Agreement States for the regulation of Atomic Energy Act material. (iii)
The following are examples of situations where the MRB would consider recommending initiating formal procedures to terminate an ggreement. This list is not allinclusive and other situations may require consideration. (b)
Significant loss of staff, which includes number of staff or those with critical skills, coupled with a State's inability to hire appropriate replacementt (i)
Continual problems which manifest in the State's inability to perform adequate inspections or issue appropriate licenses. (ii)
State's inability to adopt compatible program elements over a significant period of time (years) and nationally disruptive regulatory program conflicts, gaps, or duplication exist. (iii)
Continued probationary or suspension status for a State program beyond the period l
originally envisioned. (iv)
Guidance for MRB Determinations for NRC Regional Programs (F)
Though not impossible, NRC believes that it is unlikely that a NRC regional program would deteriorate over a period of time such that the program would be found inadequate to protect public health and safety. The NRC headquarters office, NMSS, closely monitors the program status and quality of the regions. A significant weakness which would affect public health and safety would be addressed by adjustment of priorities and redirection of resources as necessary to address deficiencies. (1)
Though not impossible, NRC believes that it is unlikely that a NRC regional program would be found adequate but needs improvement. As noted above, NMSS closely monites the daily activities of the regional programs and would redirect resources and adjust priorities as necessary to address deficiencies. (2) 5
If significant adequacy-related concerns are identified in a regional materials program by an IMPEP review, the same criteria for an Agreement State determination that a program is adequate, but needs improvement, should be used by the MlW. Program probation, suspension, and termination are not applicable to regional progisms. NRC must implement immediate action to correct regional program deficiencies that are similar to those that would warrant probation, suspension, or termination actions for an Agree nent State. (3)
M O
.I 6
l
___ _ _)
_