ML20216C706
| ML20216C706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/03/1998 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | GENERAL, OHIO, STATE OF, OKLAHOMA, STATE OF, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216C713 | List: |
| References | |
| SP-98-026, SP-98-26, NUDOCS 9804150023 | |
| Download: ML20216C706 (9) | |
Text
\\
v w<
l t
3 6
ALL AGREEMENT STATES ER - 3 Rgg i
PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA l
TRANSMITTA'L OF S, TATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-98-026 Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:
INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION....
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION...
TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION....
TECHNICAL INFORMATION...
OTHER INFORMATION..................... XX IMPEP SESSION AT THE 1997 ALL AGREEMENT STATES MEETING Suoolementarv informatiQD: As agreed during the 1997 All Agreement States Meeting, we have reviewed the transcript of the discussions held during the IMPEP session. The enclosure identifies issues raised during the discussion and contains a response to each issue.
l If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Lance J. Rakovan TELEPHONE:
(301)415-2589
{
FAX:
(301) 415-3502 INTERNET:
LJR2@NRC. GOV Original Signed By:
PAUL H. LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
DlR RF y DCD (SP03)
SDroggitis PDR (YES.L) (NO_)
f[/
l KSchneider
' j A/S File
/
1 I
IMPEP File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SP98 026.LJR Te receive a cop t of this document. Indicate in the box: "C"= M 4t ut attachment / enclosure "E" = Coptr with attachr o uMN" s No copy OFFICE OSP /,yl OSF6p/ l NMSS:IMNS
~@fr l
NAME LRakovan:nb 2 PLohaus W I DCool(see 3/2/98 RBangart DATE 04/ 3 /98 04/ V /98 memo) 04/ J /98
^
-ann
~~
... 9804150023 980403 3
PDR STPRG ESGGEN
[
PDR 1-m-
~
pn ttig, g
1 UNITED STATES g'
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556 0001
/
April 3, 1998 ALL AGREEMENT STATES PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA,
' TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-98-026 1
Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:
4 INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION...
)
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION...
TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION.,......
TECHNICAL INFORMATION................
i i
OTHER INFORMATION......................... XX IMPEP SESSION AT THE 1997 ALL AGREEMENT STATES MEETING Suooleme"ntarv information: As agreed during the 1997 All Agreement States Meeting, we have reviewed the transcript of the discussions held during the IMPEP session. The enclosure identifies issues raised during the discussion and contains a response to each issue.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Lance J. Rakovan TELEPHONE:
(301)415-2589 FAX:
(301) 415-3502 INTERNET:
LJR2@N GOV 6
f N
(
,i i
Paul. Lohaus, Deputy irector j
Office of State Programs i
Enclosure:
l As stated i
i.
f
ISSUES FROM THE 1997 ALL AGREEMENT STATE MEETING ON IMPEP 1.
ISSUE: A review team of experienced Agreement State personnel and one experienced NRC staff should review NRC's SS&D program. The review could identify practices that may benefit the Agreement States and would provide independent review of that portion of the NRC's program for which some experienced Agreement State personnel are uniquely qualified to perform.
l RESPONSE: NRC supports and welcomes this proposal. An IMPEP-like review should be conducted, with the ensuing review interval determined based on the team's findings.
One implementation hurdle may be in finding an NRC participant from an organization outside the group being reviewed, but this is not critical from our perspective. NRC l
supports the use of an IMPEP-like review in terms of general methodology and review criteria (as stated in Management Directive 5.6). NRC suggests that OAS contact the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards directly to arrange the schedule and mechanics of such a review.
2.
ISSUE: The NRC should increase use of E-mail communication to facilitate the timeliness of communication with the questionnaire between the review team and the State.
l RESPONSE: NRC agrees and will continue with efforts to implement this recommendation.
l 3.
ISSUE: The NRC should allow responses to questions, as appropriate, to be "No change since last review" or "Only the following changes have occurred."
RESPONSE: NRC will continue to accept the use of responses to the questionnaire of "no change since last reviews" or "only the following changes have occurred."
4.
ISSUE: The NRC should allow inspector accompaniments to be scheduled throughout the period between formal IMPEP reviews.
RESPONSE: Accompaniments are acceptable throughout the period between IMPEP reviews. This issue is specifically addressed in the draft General Procedures for Performing IMPEP reviews and was discussed at the December 2,1997 IMPEP training l
for team members.
l 5.
ISSUE: All Information needed by the review team should be included in the questionnaire.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees. The IMPEP questionnaire has been revised based on the experience during the interim implementation of IMPEP and comments received from States, A list of material requested to be available during the review has been added to the questionnaire which was sent to the Agreement States for comment on 3
April 2,1998 I
L
l November 13,1997 in SP-97-079. Three comments were received by the requested date of December 19,1997. The questionnaire will be revised and issued, after receiving OMB clearance, retaining the listing of information that should be available to the team during the review.
l 6.
ISSUE: Allinformation that the review teams will need copies of should be identified j
early to the State, such as regulations.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees and guidance will be given to the team leaders to identify early to the State what information the review team will request.
7.
ISSUE: The States should not be judged against Chapter 2800, adequacy is the standard, based on the Agreement State's own regulations, license conditions, policies l
and procedures. (Note: Some States believe that Chapter 2800 offers good guidance for evaluating the adequacy ofinspection and believes that the comment made did ncL fully capture this aspect of IMC 2800.)
RESPONSE: NRC will continue to use Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800.ss base guidance forjudging inspection priority systems. Any difference will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In addition, NRC will be seeking Agreement State comments on proposed revisions to IMC 2800, as noted in the recent All Agreement State Letter, SP-97-086.
8.
ISSUE: The standards or guidance the States are judged against should be clearly identified whether they are the NRC or the States.
RESPONSE: The standards the States are judged against are identified in Management Directive 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program revised November 25,1997. This revision includes the evaluation criteria for the non-common performance indicators and reflects the final Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs approved by the Commission on June 30,1997.
9.
ISSUE: Temporary changes to inspection frequencies should not be imposed on an Agreement State, such as changes to HDR inspections frequencies.
RESPONSE: NRC will assess the reasons for each temporary instruction (TI) issued and together with Agreement States assess the need for Agreement States to implement equivalent temporary guidance.
1 10.
ISSUE: Comments on specific inspector accompaniments should not be written as to describe the entire State program.
l RESPONSE: NRC disagrees. Inspector performance deficiencies identified through l
the inspector accompaniments is unavoidably linked to the effectiveness of the program's training and the State's supervisory accompaniments when deficiencies are noted.
I
'4 April 2,1998
l 0 '
11.
ISSUE: Is it a requirement for allinspectors to be accompanied during an IMPEP review and is more guidance needed?
RESPONSE: It is not a requirement for all inspectors to be accompanied during an IMPEP review. Guidance for the number of accompaniments is contained in the draft Procedure for the review of Performance Indicator #2, Technical Quality of Material Inspection. The draft procedure recommends a minimum of three accompaniments.
r For regions or large states, five or more is preferred. Guidance for selection cf inspectors is documented in the draft General Procedure for Conducting IMPEP reviews.
12.
ISSUE: Each team member should be experienced in the area assigned to review and trained to resoNe potential issues while on-site.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees. NRC is presently developing training and qualification requirements for IMPEP reviewers.
13.
ISSUE: The review team members should resolve as many as possible specific comments and questions while on site and not put this information in the draft report which is a public document.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees that review team members should resolve as many as possible specific comments and questions on site. The teams have also been instructed to continue to resolve issues after the on-site portion of the review or return to I
the State if needed. However, an open issue could still be in the report if the team was not able to resolve it by the previous mentioned options.
l 14.
ISSUE: The NRC should provide guidance to the States on space and equipment -
{
l needs for the number of team members to be present.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees and guidance was given to the team leaders during the r
December 1997 training on coordination with the State on the team's needs.
15.
ISSUE: NRC should consider making training available to those States that participate in IMPEP reviews and working grouos.
t RESPONSE: _ On December 12,1997, Agreement State Letter SP-97-085, %e Criteria l
for Training Funding Assistance for Agreement States, was issued. In the Commission approved criteria, participation in IMPEP reviews and joint working groups are not 1
considered as part of the criteria for training funding assistance.
l 16.
ISSUE: The review team should indicate to the State which staff members and i
contractors need to be available during the entire review.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees and guidance will be given to the team leaders to coordinate with State management prior to the review and identify which staff members or j
contractors should be available during the review.
l 5
April 2,1998 i
17.
ISSUE: For the draft report, NRC should describe how concerns will be addressed and resolved in guidance for the review teams.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees in part. See the response to issue 13. However, given the performance-based approach used in IMPEP, the State is expected to evaluate the concern and implement a resolution appropriate for that specific program. It is not appropriate for the team to prescribe the method of resolution. Suggestions may be offered, however.
18.
ISSUE: It should be clearly specified that the State or Regions must fully address every report item if the respondent desires its views to be in the public record.
RESPONSE: The Agreement State is requested to respond to recommendations in the final report. NRC does not object to responses to suggestions or other items in the draft report. The State or Region has the option of addressing any draft report item when the review team has asked for factual comments on the draft report. Many States and Regions have chosen to prepare responses to the draft report prior to the Management Review Board meeting and these are sent to the Management Review Board and to the public document room.
19.
ISSUE: Limit the recommendations and comments in the draft report to significant observations.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees. Given the performance-based approach, it is NRC's intention to limit recommendations and comments to significant observations. In some cases, however, a number of less significant comments when collectively assessed can be indicative of a programmatic weakness.
20.
ISSUE: When statements are made during exit meetings that certain items will not be in the report, then the statements should not be in the report.
RESPONSE: The review team presents preliminary findings during the exit meetings.
The reports are subject to management review after preparation by the team leader.
i There have been instances (and there will likely continue to be instances), where items have been identified after the review, which may not have been previously identified or the team did not originally believe would be included in the report. The team leaders, in those cases, notified (or will notify) State program management of the change from the findings discussed during the exit.
21.
ISSUE: Do not include a long list of questions in the report, such as detailed questions regarding SS&D reviews. Such questions should be separated from the report.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees. See response to issue 13.
l l
6 April 2,1998 lL
I 1
l 22.
ISSUE: Can NRC consider withholding the draft report and only issue the final report as a public document?
i RESPONSE: NRC has considered this question. Withholding the draft report and only l
1ssuing the final report as a public document would be a major change in the open manner in which IMPEP is conducted, as approved by the Commission. in 1991 NRC adopted " Principles of Good Regulation" and these principles are reflected in the l
Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program, issued September 3,1997, (62 FR 46517). One of the principles is regulatory openness.
i IMPEP was designed such that decisions and actions would be developed and implemented in an open and publicly credible manner in order to withstand scrutiny.
l Such scrutiny should be welcomed by the parties involved in the reviews. As stated in the " Principles of Good Regulation,"
- Nuclear regulation is the public's business, and it must be transacted publicly and candidly." The public must be informed about and have the opportunity to participate in regulatory processes.
I We believe that placing the draft report in the Public Document Room and holding Management Review Board meetings open to the public achieve these goals and benefits the public which we serve. Without public availability of the draft reports, it would greatly handicap the understanding of any member of the public attending a Management Review Board meeting.
23.
ISSUE: NRC needs to be sensitive to timing and content of the draft report when states are in licensing decisions.
RESPONSE: NRC reports factually on areas that need improvement in accordance with established reporting milestones. NRC agrees that it is especially important to have facts, conclusions and recommendations, clearly stated when important and controversial licensing activities are under consideration by the State.
24.
ISSUE: NRC should send the draft report to the program manager or highest level of management involved with the closeout, instead of a yet higher level of management than was involved.
RESPONSE: Prior to the IMPEP review, the team leader contacts the program manager for the identification of the proper level of upper management within the State for receipt of the report and for conducting of the exit meeting.
25.
ISSUE: NRC should inform the State staff attending the MRB what to expect during an MRB meeting.
RESPONSE: In June 1997, NRC began an orientation for those State staff attending MRB meetings in person prior to the meeting. We will expand this orientation to include those States staff attending the MRB via telephone.
l 7
April 2,1998
L.
l 26.
ISSUE: During executive sessions of the MRB, it should be clarified whether the MRB can make decisions and inform all participants as to the process.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees and the procedure for the MRB will be revised to clarify the process and actions of the MRB during executive sessions. By practice, the MRB currently reports the votes of all MRB decisions.
27, ISSUE: Does NRC still notify those interested in attending by telephone the times for scheduled MRB7 RESPONSE: The scheduled meetings open to the public, which include the MRB meetings, can be found on the NRC home page at:
http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/PUBLIC/ meet.html The information changes frequently. For the most up to date meeting information, call a recording of upcoming meetings at 800-952-9674 or contact the electronic bulletin board i
system directly at 800-952-9676.
28.
ISSUE: The NRC should describe in a transmittal letter, how the final report was changed as a result of the draft report review and MRB process.
RESPONSE: Details of the changes to the proposed final report as a result of the MRB meeting are documented in the first page of the final report with significant changes noted in the transmittal letter for the final report to the State. Additional details on the changes as a result of the MRB meeting can be found in the minutes of the MRB meeting, which are sent to the State and are publicly available.
29.
ISSUE: If there are substantial items in the proposed final report that changes the finding, the State should have more time before the MRB meeting.
RESPONSE: NRC agrees. However, substantive changes from the draft to proposed final report almost always result from State corr nents. We will continue to work with the States to l<eep them informed of significant changes that occur as the proposed final report is varitten. Although significant delays in final report issuance could result, NRC will reschedu!a the MRB meeting date if a State is not prepared to meet because of significant draft report revisions that are reflected in the proposed final report.
30.
ISSUE: Should there be another mechanism to deal with items that contribute to an IMPEP review, but is not apparently a part of the IMPEP review itself, as an example, regulations?
RESPONSE: NRC believes that items that contribute to the performance of the State's
{
program should be part of the IMPEP review. The example given, regulations, is a non-common performance indicator under IMPEP that contributes significantly to the program compatibility determinations. NRC believes that allindicators evaluated by 8
April 2,1998
i l*
l i
IMPEP reviews are necessary to arrive at valid adequacy and compatibility determinations.
31.
ISSUE: Required minimum inspection frequencies should be determined by cooperations of all parties, including agreement by a majority of Agreement States, the l
NRC Regions and the NRC HQ with each having one vote in the determination process.
l Then, the NRC and Agreement States have flexibility to make changes for each l
agency's own jurisdiction without impacting the resource requirements of the others.
i The required minimum inspection frequency would be subject to review as needed with changes made only by approval of a majority of the regulatory agency parties. The required frequency could be a range for each licensee category. For example, the HDR minimum inspection frequency was set at one year, and determined without Agreement States input.
RESPONSE: See response to issue 7. NRC is currently committed to provide Agreement States early and substantive involvemcat on materials program policy 1
changes, including inspection frequency guidance.
i 32.
ISSUE: Reciprocity inspection frequencies should bc determined in the same manner as recommended in item 31.
RESPONSE: See response to issues 7 and 31.
i 33.
ISSUE: Expectations for required training of Agreement State staff under IMPEP should be clearly specified. Although this is an open item, the States believe that the training working group report will resolve this issue.
RESPONSE: The required training of Agreement State staff under IMPEP is clearly specified under Management Directive 5.6 where Agreement State should have an equivalent program to IMC 1246. The working group report was distributed to all IMPEP team members during the December 1997 training and to the Agreement States as guidance for establishing a training program.
34.
ISSUE: One State requested that determinations of compatibility, especially of regulations, should be removed from the IMPEP process. However, several other r,tates disagreed (pages 122-127) with this as an issue and stated support that compatibility determinations remain as part of the IMPEP process.
RESPONSE: See response to issue 30.
35.
ISSUE: As an item for the Organization of Agreement States to consider, guidance for 4
State program managers to effectively utilize the IMPEP results to improve the Agreement State program within the State.
I.
RESPONSE: For OAS action.
I I
9 April 2,1998
(
i
Mh/2 g g.2e.
e
,$'"*%,\\
pyi,
UNITED STATES y
gg g.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg : ;
WASHINGTON O.C. 30006 4001
\\4, March 2,.1998 MEMORANDUM TO:
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director g
Office of State Program g
x FROM:
Donald A. Cool, Direct An 1
- '.a 7
Division ofindustrial arp
'r
')
MedicalNuclear'Gefe, MSS L'
E' Y?
SUBJECT:
IMPEP SESSION AT 1 7 ALL AGREEMENT STATE MEETeblG s-This responds to your memorandum dated February 23,1998, on the above subject.
The Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety concurs without comment on proposed responses circulated in your memorandum. With respect to lasue 1, our response follows:
ISSUE:
"A review team of experienced Agreement State personnel and one experienced NRC staff (member] should review NRC's SS&D program. The review could identify practices that may benefit the Agreement States and would provide independent review of that portion of the NRC's program for which some experienced Agreement State personnel are uniquely qualified to perform."
RESPONSE: NRC supports and welcomes this proposal. An IMPEP-like review should be conducted, with the ensuing review interval determined based on the team's findings. One implementation hurdle may be in finding an NRC participant from an organization outside the group being reviewed, but this is not critical from our perspective. We support the use of an IMPEP-like review in terms of general i
methodology and review criteria (as stated in Management Directive 5.6). We suggest that OAS contact the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards directly to arrange the schedule and mechanics of such a review.
CONTACT:
George Deegan, NMSS/IMNS (301) 415-7834 i
.