ML20217E319
| ML20217E319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/23/1998 |
| From: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Thompson H NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804270263 | |
| Download: ML20217E319 (2) | |
Text
e 4o0 s
9 0
UNITED STATES
)
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(*
"o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566 4001 April 23, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO:
Hugh L Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs J
/
FROM:
Carl J. Paperiello, Director b
N Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
APPROACH FOR REACHING AN OVERALL NEW YORK AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM REVIEW FINDING l
l am responding to your request, dated April 9.1998, for comments on various approaches to combine the information f"om each individual review of programs within the State of New York l
to achieve an overall finding of adequacy and cornpatibility. For the review currently being l
conducted, using different team members for each agency reviewed, Approach Three, which l
rates each agency, but does not assign an overall State rating for each indicator, seems most l
appropriate for determining individual ratings for common and non-common performance indicators.
I l
l The issae of determining an overall State rating for adequacy and compatibility is complex l
because of the inherent differences in determining adequacy and compatibility. The l
weighted-average method discussed in Approach One, option c., would seem most equitable, l
and seems reasonable when looking at issues related to adequacy. However, there may be s;tuations related to compatibility, where one of the state agency has the key lead for a segment of uses, where the absence of corresponding compatible regulations would be a l
cause for serious concern, and for which it would seem difficult to reach an overall finding of l
compatib:lity based on the weighted average approach.
We will be prepared to discuss these issues when the Management Review Board meets te l
discuss the approach.
j
\\
o h
3O L tl 2 Al' 1
CONTACT:
Douglas A. Broaddus, NMSS/IMNS (301)415-5847
^o ECFifCBUfBCOPY
~
~~
9804270263 980423
~
g Hugh L. Thompson, Jr. -
The recommendation to use Approach Three, with the above qualifiers, is based on the multiple team-approach used in the IMPEP of New York, during this rating period. With multiple teams and team members, it would seem difficult to combine the ratings of each agency into a single rating for the State, as a whole. However, the approach used for this IMPEP of New York does not seem to be the most appropriate approach to use in the future. Instead, an approach that maintaino consistency and homogeneity across each individual review, through the use of a single review team (at least in like program areas), would allow the team and the MRB to gain a i
better understanding of the State's overall program and make recommendations accordingly.
In addition, the MRB would have a single source (reviewer) of information conceming a general
~
program area (i.e., licensing or inspection) that would have knowledge of all agencies' strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, it is recommended that any future IMPEP of a State that has multiple agencies to conduct its program use the same team member (s) for each program area that is covered by one or more agency. In addition, if this approach is used for conducting IMPEPs of States with multiple agencies, either Approach One, option c., or Approach Two could be used by the MRB when evaluating individual common and non-common indicators, as J
well as an overall State rating for adequacy and compatibility. In either case, particularly exceptional or poor performance could be recognized in the final report.
Regardless of the approach used in the future for IMPEPs of States with multiple agencies, Approach One, options a. and b., do not seem an equitable means for determining ratings for the State. As indicated in your memorandum of April 9,1998, these approaches would seem to either over-or under-emphasize particularly poor performance and would, in almost all cases, under-emphasize particularly exceptional performance. In addition, each of these approaches is prescriptive and leaves the MRB little to no leeway for judgment of extenuating circumstances. Also, these approaches may require the MRB to recommend a rating that would otherwise not be recommended when the criteria in Management Directive 5.6 are applied and followed across the entire program.
DISTRIBUTION: NMSS 9800176 NRC Central File R.L. Bangart, OSP K.D. Cyr, OGC IMNS r/f NMSS r/f -
CPoland T.T. Martin, AEOD PDR: YES X NO j
DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\NY-RAT.WPD oefenoormo/apms. so, isee To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Co Ettachment/ enclosure "N"' = No copy OFFICE OB l
NMSS l
OB l lMNS
]
NyR[] l l
NAME DBroaddus/LL EKraus FCombs DCool Cllta(4iello DATE 4/20/98 4/20/98-fax 4/20/98 4/20/98 4/14/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY